indigoviolet

10 ms·

61.
"Learn more about Privacy on Facebook": video explaining Privacy settings(facebook.com)
1 points by indigoviolet 16y ago|0 comments
62.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
Here is Facebook's explanation: http://www.facebook.com/privacy/explanation.php#basicinfo Basically, if your profile picture were private, it would be hard for someone (who is your friend/acquaintance in real life) who isn't friends with
63.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
Of course the things you're suggesting will allow Facebook to add features to the product, and indirectly perhaps add revenue. That is very different from this: "The only way they can do it is by selling users data one way or another.". Peo
64.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
Here you go: http://gigaom.com/2010/05/26/facebooks-new-privacy-settings-...
65.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
Which part of "Facebook doesn't require you to make your data public to target ads to you." are you disagreeing with?
66.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
Mark mentioned that they're going to put links to this in messaging on the home page, which is about as in-your-face as possible. Nonsavvy users aren't reading blog posts either.
67.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
Facebook doesn't require you to make your data public to target ads to you. Advertisers don't ever see your actual data -- they target to demographics, and Facebook acts as the intermediary, displaying those ads to the appropriate users. He
68.
FAQs on Privacy at Facebook(facebook.com)
2 points by indigoviolet 16y ago|0 comments
69.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
That's a big if.
70.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
Here's where I'd guess you're wrong: "my friends visit cnn with equal probability as other Facebook users". CNN visitors are likely to be highly grouped, plus you can share these stories back to Facebook and with your friends, increasing th
71.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
Here's a suggestion: figure out the 'topic' words in the subject (shouldn't be too hard to do a moderately good job by looking at word frequencies in the titles submitted so far and whitelisting/blacklisting some); start attaching a penalty
72.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
The spin people are putting on this is just unbelievably sensation-mongering. ReadWriteWeb of all places is calling them on it - http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/unbelievable_wsj_calls_... . It's so disappointing to see Hacker News be
73.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
David Recordon, who wrote the big post on that page actually works at Facebook. As does Luke Shepard.
74.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
Aren't you also imposing your "morality" about sharing on users who use this? Would you be comfortable if Facebook were to do something like this, with [good] pointing to "sharing something with everyone"?
75.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
Are you really editorializing in a HN submission's title?
76.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
Your points are well taken.
77.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
Can you explain to me (to my email if you want, it's in my profile) exactly where you're finding these connections you've removed, how you removed them (and with your userid)? If you do so, I can try to look into it. I don't know what you'r
78.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
You're wrong about too many people getting rid of their data. [I work at Facebook]
79.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
I work for Facebook and am naturally biased, but even in my cap as a longtime HN reader, I was disappointed at the difference between the reception to http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1339248 versus the other Facebook-related posts her
80.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
you can make arbitrary friend lists and share most things specifically to a list.
81.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
Frankly I'm a little hesitant to attempt to explain in too much detail, because I don't want to do a bad job and I'm not sure I'm seeing all the angles. I'll try to do a very high-level view. Keep in mind that this is just my perspective. T
82.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
Of course it would be best if the settings were so simple that no education were necessary. But my claim is (a) for a site like Facebook to work "well" [where we can argue ad infinitum what "well" means], some information needs to be shared
83.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
- This is the settings page I'm referring to: http://www.facebook.com/settings/?tab=privacy&section=pr... If you're interested in seeing if your settings are working, you can try the "Preview my profile" button on that page. Btw, I fo
84.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
I'm just a software engineer. I'm sorry you think that I'm doing a poor job of defending Facebook, because I think in that a lot of the criticisms are inaccurate and come from a poor understanding of the privacy policies, the motivations an
85.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
I had to dig a little to find a screenshot: see http://techcrunch.com/2007/11/07/the-facebook-ad-backlash-be... . The first thumbnail at the bottom of that post already shows a Fans box on the Blockbuster Page.
86.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
" Even where some of this information was previously publicly visible, it wasn't so conveniently publicly indexed; someone would have to visit individual profiles in order to turn it up." Previously, the text in these boxes was a link to a
87.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
The Fans box on the Page has always been the way it is now. When you fanned a Page, there was some small chance that you would appear in that box, and the users who appeared in that box are random on each page load. I'm not convinced that t
88.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
True, but this has always been the case. Page connections have always been public. You can still control their visibility on your profile. Separately, while it is true that you can be seen on the Fans section of a Page, the chances that thi
89.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
[Disclaimer: I work for Facebook, but obviously I don't speak for it]. It is unclear to me which "new" policies they are referring to in this article: (a) Pages you fanned have always been public. (b) The "Religious Views" and "Political Vi
90.
by indigoviolet 16y ago
It's an evolution, and we're figuring things out as we go. This isn't territory that anyone has ever explored in the past. As for your bet, the obvious counterargument is that 400 million users still visit the site every month, and I haven'

More ›