5 ms·

RFTA They did not do that. What happened is it appears a friend who did know added them to a group and before they connected to joining that showed up on their

RFTA They did not do that. What happened is it appears a friend who did know added them to a group and before they connected to joining that showed up on their feed. They did nothing. They were passive, and they were still outed because facebook didn't ask for permission and broadcast that they had been added by a third party to a group to their wall.

jgrahamc 14y ago
I did read it and I was making (poorly) a different point: the problem here is that you see the solution as technical ("Facebook should have better privacy controls") whereas I see the solution as personal ("Do not use Facebook"). I do not believe that it will be feasible for Facebook to both add functionality over time and preserve privacy and so the only solution is not to use Facebook at all.
- jonursenbach 14y ago
  Not using Facebook isn't really an option for kids these days.
  - catshirt 14y ago
    what?
  - jgroome 14y ago
    No way can I agree with that. Indeed, the "cool" thing for the time being is to NOT be on Facebook.
    - lincolnq 14y ago
      Just because you say it does not make it true. Social considerations are some of the most powerful forces. People considered me "weird" because I wasn't on Facebook for a long time. Eventually I re activated my account, because I was tired of explaining to people why I wasn't on, and because I was missing out on photos and experiences and events that were only shared on Facebook. I agree that you can sometimes seem cool by seeming aloof to what everyone else is doing, but when it damages your social life, most people aren't going to do it.
    - 27182818284 14y ago
      The cool kids on Tumblr or whatever is next still have a Facebook account they check fairly often.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  Sure, let's isolate LGBT youth even further by making them avoid Facebook entirely.
  - jgrahamc 14y ago
    My comment was not directed at any particular group. I do not believe that Facebook is a net positive and believe it should be avoided.
    - derleth 14y ago
      > I do not believe that Facebook is a net positive and believe it should be avoided. I agree with you. I'm very happy I'm socially allowed to not be on Facebook. There are a lot of people who are essentially forced to be on Facebook due to social obligations. Your social solution can't work for them. They need a technical solution or a different social solution. And, no, the 'different social solution' isn't going to be "Get everyone to accept LGBTQ people."
      - SquareWheel 14y ago
        "There are a lot of people who are essentially forced to be on Facebook due to social obligations." While I don't agree with John in this case (which is unusual), nobody is forced to be on Facebook. You have the option to choose between privacy and social pressure. Many of us have chosen to not create an account and haven't suffered in the least because of it. All the examples in this thread of reasons you're "forced" to be on the site amount to missing parties and not seeing pictures -- and it's a really vapid argument. It might suck to not see those pictures, but there's nobody forcing you to do so. It's still entirely up to you. To clarify, I am not victim blaming. This argument is addressing the claim that a Facebook account is a requirement of youth. It is not. Choosing privacy over pleasure might be an unattractive option for some but it's an option all the same.
        derleth 14y ago
        > To clarify, I am not victim blaming. You're skirting pretty close. > You have the option to choose between privacy and social pressure. Well, that depends on the nature of the pressure, now doesn't it? Most people can't go through life without their support network, and by 'can't' I mean can not. If being part of your network means friending them on Facebook to avoid alienating them, then that's what people have to do, isn't it?
- jmilloy 14y ago
  I'd rather see complaints followed by improvements than to just throw in the towel.
  - jgrahamc 14y ago
    I believe that throwing in the towel is appropriate because in the early 1990s I was deeply involved in research into the mathematical foundations of computer security (that's what my doctorate is in) and there was a paper written by a guy called Jeremy Jacob(1) that proved that security and functionality are at odds with each other. Thus my basis for my belief that as Facebook adds functionality security will worsen is the underlying theory. You may not think of security in this context (calling it privacy) but it's all about the same fundamental thing: the control of information flow. In the privacy context it's information flow about people. Jacob's theorem shows that Facebook's privacy will worsen over time as new functionality is added. (1) http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/csfw/csfw1991.html#Jacob91 http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/csfw/csfw199...
    - regularfry 14y ago
      You're assuming that it's already as good as it can be for the current functionality. That's not necessarily true.
    - jmilloy 14y ago
      I haven't read the article in full yet. So far it appears that the theorem is explicitly about "preventing unauthorized modification of data." Here we're talking about unauthorized read access, not write access. Can you comment on that?
    - darkarmani 14y ago
      > that proved that security and functionality are at odds with each other. Thus my basis for my belief that as Facebook adds functionality security will worsen is the underlying theory You are making a huge assumption that Facebook is as secure as it can be at its level of functionality. It is easy to see that they could add a tiny bit of functionality that barely hurts security and fix the "add any of your friends to groups" bug that their security and functionality would increase.
- Bud 14y ago
  One thing's for sure: it will be a lot more "feasible" if Facebook actually tries. Right now, they are manifestly not trying, or rather, trying to do the opposite.
- randomchars 14y ago
  The solution here would be very simple: make it optional to join groups and ask you if you want to post that you've joined. It's that simple.
- manys 14y ago
  People already know they can stop using fb. This story isn't about that, it's about how to continue to use it without this problem.

jgrahamc 14y ago

I did read it and I was making (poorly) a different point: the problem here is that you see the solution as technical ("Facebook should have better privacy controls") whereas I see the solution as personal ("Do not use Facebook"). I do not believe that it will be feasible for Facebook to both add functionality over time and preserve privacy and so the only solution is not to use Facebook at all.

jonursenbach 14y ago
Not using Facebook isn't really an option for kids these days.
- catshirt 14y ago
  what?
- jgroome 14y ago
  No way can I agree with that. Indeed, the "cool" thing for the time being is to NOT be on Facebook.
  - lincolnq 14y ago
    Just because you say it does not make it true. Social considerations are some of the most powerful forces. People considered me "weird" because I wasn't on Facebook for a long time. Eventually I re activated my account, because I was tired of explaining to people why I wasn't on, and because I was missing out on photos and experiences and events that were only shared on Facebook. I agree that you can sometimes seem cool by seeming aloof to what everyone else is doing, but when it damages your social life, most people aren't going to do it.
  - 27182818284 14y ago
    The cool kids on Tumblr or whatever is next still have a Facebook account they check fairly often.
ceejayoz 14y ago
Sure, let's isolate LGBT youth even further by making them avoid Facebook entirely.
- jgrahamc 14y ago
  My comment was not directed at any particular group. I do not believe that Facebook is a net positive and believe it should be avoided.
  - derleth 14y ago
    > I do not believe that Facebook is a net positive and believe it should be avoided. I agree with you. I'm very happy I'm socially allowed to not be on Facebook. There are a lot of people who are essentially forced to be on Facebook due to social obligations. Your social solution can't work for them. They need a technical solution or a different social solution. And, no, the 'different social solution' isn't going to be "Get everyone to accept LGBTQ people."
    - SquareWheel 14y ago
      "There are a lot of people who are essentially forced to be on Facebook due to social obligations." While I don't agree with John in this case (which is unusual), nobody is forced to be on Facebook. You have the option to choose between privacy and social pressure. Many of us have chosen to not create an account and haven't suffered in the least because of it. All the examples in this thread of reasons you're "forced" to be on the site amount to missing parties and not seeing pictures -- and it's a really vapid argument. It might suck to not see those pictures, but there's nobody forcing you to do so. It's still entirely up to you. To clarify, I am not victim blaming. This argument is addressing the claim that a Facebook account is a requirement of youth. It is not. Choosing privacy over pleasure might be an unattractive option for some but it's an option all the same.
      - derleth 14y ago
        > To clarify, I am not victim blaming. You're skirting pretty close. > You have the option to choose between privacy and social pressure. Well, that depends on the nature of the pressure, now doesn't it? Most people can't go through life without their support network, and by 'can't' I mean can not. If being part of your network means friending them on Facebook to avoid alienating them, then that's what people have to do, isn't it?
jmilloy 14y ago
I'd rather see complaints followed by improvements than to just throw in the towel.
- jgrahamc 14y ago
  I believe that throwing in the towel is appropriate because in the early 1990s I was deeply involved in research into the mathematical foundations of computer security (that's what my doctorate is in) and there was a paper written by a guy called Jeremy Jacob(1) that proved that security and functionality are at odds with each other. Thus my basis for my belief that as Facebook adds functionality security will worsen is the underlying theory. You may not think of security in this context (calling it privacy) but it's all about the same fundamental thing: the control of information flow. In the privacy context it's information flow about people. Jacob's theorem shows that Facebook's privacy will worsen over time as new functionality is added. (1) http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/csfw/csfw1991.html#Jacob91 http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/csfw/csfw199...
  - regularfry 14y ago
    You're assuming that it's already as good as it can be for the current functionality. That's not necessarily true.
  - jmilloy 14y ago
    I haven't read the article in full yet. So far it appears that the theorem is explicitly about "preventing unauthorized modification of data." Here we're talking about unauthorized read access, not write access. Can you comment on that?
  - darkarmani 14y ago
    > that proved that security and functionality are at odds with each other. Thus my basis for my belief that as Facebook adds functionality security will worsen is the underlying theory You are making a huge assumption that Facebook is as secure as it can be at its level of functionality. It is easy to see that they could add a tiny bit of functionality that barely hurts security and fix the "add any of your friends to groups" bug that their security and functionality would increase.
Bud 14y ago
One thing's for sure: it will be a lot more "feasible" if Facebook actually tries. Right now, they are manifestly not trying, or rather, trying to do the opposite.
randomchars 14y ago
The solution here would be very simple: make it optional to join groups and ask you if you want to post that you've joined. It's that simple.
manys 14y ago
People already know they can stop using fb. This story isn't about that, it's about how to continue to use it without this problem.