Facebook Calls All-Hands Meeting On Privacy

CWmike writes "A Facebook spokesman said that the company will hold an all-staff meeting on Thursday to discuss privacy issues, but would not say whether executives are looking to make significant changes to the popular site's highly contentious privacy policies following a bevy of changes to the service." (More, below.) "In an interview with Computerworld last week, Ethan Beard, director of the site's developer network, defended Facebook's policies and even said users love the changes that Facebook has made. However, it seems calls for people to delete their Facebook accounts, which have gathered momentum, have not fallen on deaf ears at the company. Adding to the perception of a crisis on hand, the NY Times profiled on Wednesday a project called Diaspora, which is creating a more private, decentralized alternative to Facebook."

Comments

Limey

[negRo_slim]

I don't particularly find Facebook's stance and practices on privacy anymore troubling that societies general attitude toward to the subject.

Re:Limey

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Serious? Our eyes and minds are being sold to advertisers and you don't find that troubling? We are not the consumers any more, we are the product. If society mimicked Facebook you're damned right there'd be privacy concerns. If I stop by a motorcycle shop to buy some oil and they sold that information to other distributors without my consent so they could bombard me with unwanted solicitations there would be hell to pay.

Re:Limey

[WrongSizeGlass]

A secret meeting about privacy doesn't bother you? Geez, talk about a tough audience.

Re:Limey

[Jafafa Hots]

"Our eyes and minds are being sold to advertisers and you don't find that troubling?"

For a second I thought you were referring to the TV and Radio broadcast industry as it has existed for the last... oh,70 to 80 years?

Re:Limey

[interkin3tic]

I believe he was saying a more disturbing problem was that most people don't care about the issues you mentioned.

Re:Limey

[Jafafa Hots]

Those bastards shouldn't be holding meetings in secret, after all, this is about PRIVACY for god's sake!

Re:Limey

[allaunjsilverfox2]

How do you know they don't do exactly that? You couldn't unless you ONLY shopped there. You leave a data trail a mile long simply by doing day to day things. What do you think wal-mart does with the database on its customers?

Re:Limey

[negRo_slim]

"Our eyes and minds are being sold to advertisers and you don't find that troubling?"

For a second I thought you were referring to the TV and Radio broadcast industry as it has existed for the last... oh,70 to 80 years?

Exactly the way privacy has been dealt with and our acceptance of pervasive advertising has been troubling for a long time now, why all the hoopla about a closed network you opt into I'll never understand,

Re:Limey

[LurkerXXX]

They want lots of privacy for things THEY do. Just none for things WE do.

Re:Limey

[Jafafa Hots]

Well, until recently (DirecTV and shit) TV at least didn't watch you back.

Come to think of it, the internet is kind of an Orwellian sort of TV, isn't it?

Re:Limey

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

The problem isn't the opt-in. The problem is the arbitrary changing of the TOS with little fanfare. I will grant you that I am a giant hypocrite since I doubt I'll be abandoning Facebook any time soon. I think I was able to deal with TV and radio because it was just broad advertising. Being targeted just seems a little creepier.

Re:Limey

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see what the big deal is, and what you describe is not the goal of the changes they have made. They won't bombard you with anymore solicitations than they already do, they would simply tailor them to your interests. I'd love if they'd do this on TV, I'd much rather see commercials tailored to my inner nerd instead of telling me what brand of tampons to buy.

Re:Limey

[Anonymous Coward]

so don't use facebook. Wow - that was really fucking easy. ;)

Re:Limey

[Scrameustache]

"Our eyes and minds are being sold to advertisers and you don't find that troubling?"

For a second I thought you were referring to the TV and Radio broadcast industry as it has existed for the last... oh,70 to 80 years?

Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?"
Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.

Re:Limey

[Opportunist]

And that's different from any other medium you're "consuming" in what way, exactly? From TV to radio to newspapers to any other for-profit page on the web.

Re:Limey

[PopeRatzo]

Come to think of it, the internet is kind of an Orwellian sort of TV, isn't it?

It didn't start out that way.

In fact, it didn't even start to move in that direction until big business and telecommunications decided that there was billions to be made and that the hippies and programmers and college students couldn't be trusted with this powerful new tool.

Do you remember when there were dozens of ISPs in every big town? Little shops would open up in a storefront offering everything from dialup to T1. You'd get your connection and do with it what you would. Where did they all go? And before you tell me all the huge technical innovations that the corporate world has brought to the internet, remember that there was IRC before anyone knew what a "text message" even was. The big contribution of the corporate world to the internet? Television! I can watch Jersey Shore over the internet! Big fucking deal.

Government made the internet, and they goddamn well better get a handle on the corporate takeover of it before it turns completely into cable television.

Re:Limey

[negRo_slim]

The problem isn't the opt-in.

I was referring to the fact you do not have to use Facebook.

Re:Limey

[metrometro]

If you think it's OK that the Internet is turning into what the TV and Radio broadcasting industry has given us for the last 80 years, then yeah, it's all good. I, however, will fight this with everything I've got. It's worth it.

Re:Limey

[zblack_eagle]

We are not the consumers any more, we are the product.

Consumers are the product. Advertisers deliver this product to their customers. The way I've always heard the term "consumers" used in the media reminds me of cattle. Every producer and provider wants as much consumer pie as it can eat, and we best not spook the consumer or it'll take a break from its mindless consumption.

But if you meant that we aren't the customers any more; you're right, we aren't. Being a customer is what you want to be, not a consumer.

Re:Limey

[Anonymous Coward]

There will be no "getting a handle on the corporate takeover"- Corporate America sponsors the largest part of US "government"; there is very little divide between the two. In time it -will- turn into cable vision, and there's not a damned thing you can do about it. The cute little policy rulings by the FCC, the passionate wailings of the EFF are no more than attempts to hold back the tide with a rake- The last twitches of a failed republic. Take an objective look at things.... The power -will- follow the money; corporate America has and will continue to use phenomenal amounts of money to bend government to it's will; They've got all the time and money they need- do you really think they'll give up / stop?

Re:Limey

[hobo sapiens]

Wow. I don't think I could have said it better. Haven't had mod points in years, and I'd spend them all on you.

Does /. even give mod points anymore?

Re:Limey

[hobo sapiens]

Fight it with everything you got? Really? Like what? Somehow, I don't think old copies of Bear Party, empty cans of pringles, and that musty smell of your mother's basement is going to make anyone stand up and take notice. Well, maybe the musty smell, but that's not the kind of noticin' you want if you know what I mean.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Re:Limey

[BitHive]

Yep, in the end the panopticon emerged because enough people chose to opt in. No conspiracy required.

Re:Limey

[metrometro]

Actually, I help run a small but scrappy nonprofit dedicated to providing democracies with good information, and part of that is looking after the tools that make that possible.

http://www.omidyar.com/portfolio/global-integrity

I know it's Slashdot, but some of us actually do mean what we say.

Re:Limey

[hobo sapiens]

Sure, it was a joke. You merely provided the setup ;)

Re:Limey

[Anonymous Coward]

Well Wal-Mart doesn't have a database on me that I know of. I shop there, but have paid cash. Safeway, Lucky, and WinCo however - they have databases on me. So does Best Buy. My wife signs up for all of the loyalty programs where you get a few cents off if you buy x, y, or z - so they have tons of data on what we buy. It's down right ridiculous how much info they must have on us.

Re:Limey

[fustakrakich]

...small but scrappy nonprofit...

Heh, global integrity.. All backed by our other favorite internet company we love to hate. "Small" by Gate's standards, maybe...

Re:Limey

[jhoegl]

Only to the recently cool.

Re:Limey

[gangien]

You may remember the dot com bubble? lots of things were over invested in.. including ISPs.

I don't think you could say with a straight face the internet was as remotely as usable as it is today or had the wealth of information it does today. Of course not all of that because of the big corporations, but much of it is. MSN, AIM, games, bunch of stuff from google all things I use on a daily basis.

Your nostalgia is showing.

Re:Limey

[surmak]

I think the real problem is not Facebook, but a system that allows businesses to retroactively and without notification, change the the agreement that the user agreed to when business relationship was first established.

If Facebook wants to change the TOS, privacy policy, or anything else, about the service, they should have to require an affirmative opt-in from the user first. They have the right (in the absence of a contract) to cancel a user's account, on the service, but not to change the terms or settings. If they want to change the terms, they can either advertise how great the new features are, and ask users to opt-in to them, or they can put up a notification at the next log-in telling exactly what has changed, and require the user to accept or reject the changes. (Depending on how critical the changes are to the business, a rejection may require closing the account.),

In a just world, that is how all terms with a business should be. It is unconscionable to require the users to keep checking a document on a website with no notification that the terms have changes. And yet, Facebook, ISPs, credit cards, and many other businesses scam their users with such sneakwrap provisions.

Re:Limey

[grrrl]

Well said. "We may change the terms of service at any time" is a clause that lets companies get away with whatever they want.

I recently noticed, purely by accident but thankfully in time, a bait-and-switch type terms and conditions change for the Woolworths/QANTAS frequent flyer program card. When signing up for the program I checked there was no selling of data to third party sources for advertising etc. Then they changed the conditions to add just that! I immediately rang and cancelled my account (I hate being sent advertising in the mail, not to mention the disgusting waste of resources it represents). But with no actual notification of such changes, via mail, email or otherwise, (I just happened to look at their website on that day) most people would not even know and would probably be shocked to realise the change of terms to include such a bastardly clause after the fact.

Re:Limey

[tyrione]

The problem isn't the opt-in. The problem is the arbitrary changing of the TOS with little fanfare. I will grant you that I am a giant hypocrite since I doubt I'll be abandoning Facebook any time soon. I think I was able to deal with TV and radio because it was just broad advertising. Being targeted just seems a little creepier.

Then you better not go to chain grocers as they all track your buying patterns.

Re:Limey

[Culture20]

You may remember the dot com bubble? lots of things were over invested in.. including ISPs. I don't think you could say with a straight face the internet was as remotely as usable as it is today or had the wealth of information it does today.

Internet then: See my Dog on the WWW! Type in #.#.#.# into the location field in Mosaic (install Mosaic from this floppy).
Internet now: See my Dog on Facebook! Go to www.facebook.com, make an account, friend me, wait for confirmation, then click on albums, and my dog's album.

What a difference.

Re:Limey

[Cryolithic]

Don't use their shoppers card.

Re:Limey

[LaminatorX]

:"Where did they all go?"

:::"Economies of scale happened to them."

Not so, the same fate befell the small players as did the big national ISPs and online services: They got squeezed out of the broadband market by last-mile carriers abusing their monopolies.

Re:Limey

[Anonymous Coward]

Join my new Facebook group, "Dumb Fucks on Facebook"!

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=121016297918475

Re:Limey

[Nikker]

As long as maximizing profits is an incentive and these cryptic EULAs exist it's really a no brainer. Any sufficiently popular group will incite the same outcome. As it tends to create an implosion maybe it mimics reality and evolution like everything else. It is way too easy to sell data as it is a proven asset to many in many different aspects of business, governament and social curiosity. I belive once we get rid of these long winded "agreements" and people can weigh dynamically and in real time people will continue to be baited en-masse into situations like this.

"Unless you have something to hide."

Re:Limey

[pclminion]

Serious? Our eyes and minds are being sold to advertisers and you don't find that troubling?

No. Seeing a business taking advantage of the state of affairs is not troubling, it's to be expected. What is troubling is the complete willingness of people to give away their private information, and when you ask them why they tolerate a company acting like that, they say "Who cares?" The problem isn't the company, the problem is the people themselves.

Re:Limey

[Eskarel]

The issue with facebook is really rather simple.

Facebook's value for its investors is that it's a gigantic comprehensive advertising database where the marks *cough* I mean customers input all the data on their own. People put information into Facebook that they'd never tell someone taking a survey and you don't even have to pay someone to ask them the questions. Achieving this goal is basically top on Facebook's list of long term priorities, just as it will be on any other free social networking site which doesn't want to operate at a massive loss.

The conflict is that the users of facebook didn't sign up for that. They want and quite rightfully expect a certain level of privacy for the content they post on the site. You might argue that telling everyone about your personal life is the antithesis of privacy, but privacy is about your ability to determine your own level of disclosure, not having some specific level of disclosure which the older generations find appropriate.

Essentially the end result of all of this is that every 6 months or so, facebook tries to turn all the information it has into cold hard cash and shortly thereafter their userbase throws a wobbly and they have to back out.

Re:Limey

[Cruciform]

If they happened to maintain the levels of privacy the users agreed to without changing them up and forcing the users to play catch up it wouldn't be an issue.

Instead of having control over the dispersion of information among their social network people are sticking fingers in the dike to plug up new leaks every day. People may be overly trusting with their data, but if they have to agree to terms of service then Facebook should have some obligation to honor the users rules of dissemination.

So on that note, gut your Facebook profile today or delete it altogether.

Re:Limey

[Anonymous Coward]

No. They can't track all your purchases. They can only track your purchases if you use a debit/credit card or a discount card. If you use cash and no discount card there is no way for them to track you. It's then an anonymous transaction.

Re:Limey

[Scott Tracy]

I thought it was just me - my Karma's in good standing, but I haven't been offered the chance to moderate for a couple of years

Re:Limey

[SnowZero]

...or a credit card.

Re:Limey

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, you set up a website, that's pretty hardcore, opponents of freedom everywhere are running scared now. keep fighting the good fight

Re:Limey

[Anonymous Coward]

If Facebook wants to change the TOS, privacy policy, or anything else, about the service, they should have to require an affirmative opt-in from the user first. [...] If they want to change the terms, they can either advertise how great the new features are, and ask users to opt-in to them, or they can put up a notification at the next log-in telling exactly what has changed, and require the user to accept or reject the changes.

Like you said, credit cards and ISP's have been doing this for decades. Never once have I seen a mandatory optin to keep receiving a service that they already charge me for. And we know money is god to these people.

Having a doomsday date opt-in where even a tiny 10% of people forget (or galvanize and choose to leave) your company is thousands of accounts poorer overnight. Higher-ups hate any customer related exodus that could be ... massaged around. Facebook costs us nothing, but it costs THEM cold hard third-party data-miner cash. So good luck with "opt-in." Pretty sure this "all-hands" is just for fake "show of concern" to the media, and mainly to brief all their peons to direct all reporter calls to trained spokespeople, rather than take any MORE flak unprepared.

Why that? because they probably are preparing to roll out even bigger changes and want to ride them out better than they just did this past month.

Re:Limey

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies sneaking in changes to TOS has been building up since EULAs, TOS agreements, and whatnot became more and more difficult to read. They have been getting progressively worse over the years and the typical argument is "I don't like where this is going..." vs. "If you don't like it, just don't use use it!". I haven't read a TOS agreement or EULA in the last year that didn't make me want to turn it down; unfortunately, that includes things that my family and I need to thrive (home, electricity, water, vehicle, internet service, etc.)

Re:Limey

[Aqualung812]

What do you think wal-mart does with the database on its customers?

Uses it to kill the firstborn male child in every household.

Re:Limey

[ikeman32]

Serious? Our eyes and minds are being sold to advertisers and you don't find that troubling? We are not the consumers any more, we are the product. If society mimicked Facebook you're damned right there'd be privacy concerns. If I stop by a motorcycle shop to buy some oil and they sold that information to other distributors without my consent so they could bombard me with unwanted solicitations there would be hell to pay.

Privacy is an illusion that we make our selves to feel comfortable. Every time you fill out a form and click the send button you give up your privacy. If you can't stand the heat get out of the hotbox. You give your consent by virtue of clicking send.

By continuing to use this site constitutes acceptance of any and all policies regarding this site regardless of whether or not you actually read said policies. All policies subject to change with or without notice.

Re:Limey

[sgbett]

People are the problem in so many ways that this comment only scratches the surface.

Re:Limey

[he-sk]

Unless you use cash.

Re:Limey

[Jaruzel]

Government made the internet, and they goddamn well better get a handle on the corporate takeover of it before it turns completely into cable television.

I totally agree with this point. I am sick and tired of following a news headline in my RSS reader only to find that the destination page is just an embedded video player of some talking head hack reading out loud the article I was fully prepared to read for myself in the first place.

If I wanted to watch TV, I'd turn it on. Now, get off my lawn!

-Jar.

Re:Limey

[Anonymous Coward]

its not that fucking easy.

people on face book put up stuff about you even if you don't want them to.

they leave a data trail for you and there is no control over that.

Re:Limey

[Aradiel]

It's somewhat like telling someone something personal that is relevant to the conversation at hand, on their guarantee that they tell no one else. Then 6 months later they sell the story to a newspaper without your consent.

Re:Limey

[MindlessAutomata]

Quit painting "corporate" America as the evil and "government" as the good slayer of dragons; they're a two-headed beast, often times the two are indistinguishable. It is government law, after all, that makes the corporation a limited-liability organization. Where men go to jail for, corporations may only get a fine, if that. It's not that corporations are a corrupting influence on good and righteous government, it's that there is no such thing as good and righteous government anymore than communism is a realistic political system. Both "enlightened democracy" and "communism" fail because they simply don't work in practice. It's just part of our social mythos to pretend that one is more feasible than the other. People bitching about corporations using massive amounts of money to "bend" government to its will like to put all the blame on corporations and none on government for ideological reasons, but corporate cash isn't like some magical force. There's a reason it's working, and it's because both groups are pigs. It takes the exact kind of faith in "god" to have faith in "government. (or, corporations, but nobody has faith in those)." Corporations will use government, and government will use corporations for its own ends. A corporation alone, at least, can be avoided in some way without threat of jail/fine (except in the cases of insurance in certain areas, where the government wants you to purchase them to help their insurance lobbyists out, thank Obama for the newest implementation of this).

And I'm not sure what the hell your complaint is even supposed to be. Corporations are offering TV show content over the internet...? That's your idea of oppression, is the presence of that content? I don't think the smaller ISPs or dialup ISPs were really adding great innovations to the internet, either, unless you want to somehow glorify AOL during its heyday, or services like Prodigy that offered rather lame games and cheesy news portals. Maybe you should re-state your complaint, because I'm at a loss how merely offering TV is subjugating the masses. I'm not sure if government controlling the internet is anymore of a solution to whatever the problem is supposed to be, considering corporations can't and don't jail or censor the way the government does (e.g., how governments respond to wikileaks).

I find it "curious" that this corporate takeover happened exactly when slow and shitty dialup died and DSL and Cable became popular. I guess there is something inherent in broadband that let the big mean corporations rise up. Oh, if only we were back in the dialup days.... Yes, I'm being facetious, but the internet then was a lot shittier than the internet now, not in term of content (geocities, shitty message board software, etc) but technology and implementation-wise it's just plain superior. So what am I supposed to conclude from THIS? That the corporations... improved things? (note: most ISPs even then were corporate-owned; I think you just really hate the word "corporate," so I can't be sure what you even mean by it).

Not only are you being extremely and ridiculously selective in the "downsides" of today's internet and its "upsides" then, but you haven't even given a moment's thought to why it could be that telecoms/cable providers control internet access nowadays other than some sort of nefarious evil scheme. Perhaps it's just because they controlled the means to provide faster-than-dialup service from the get-go; dial-up, after all, traveled through the phone lines...

Re:Limey

[MindlessAutomata]

What a bunch of bullshit. The people moderating this nonsense up are letting their ideology show.

The difference between then and now is huge. For one, websites in general are more secure (you can't fuck up a messageboard anymore just by typing in !). They're much, MUCH more well-designed, just go look through archive.org for evidence of this. Forum softwares are DRASTICALLY better, instead of relying on geocities people register their own .com easily and affordably; e-mail accounts are MUCH easier to get (remember why hotmail got big?). Music, video (youtube, etc) are all easily transferred over the internet when it wasn't possible before. Internet shopping has matured greatly and amazon, newegg, and smaller sites offer great deals--yeah, yeah, ebay went downhill, whatever... So many amazing sites exist now that weren't even imaginable back then.

Yeah, let's just ignore Hulu (oh wait, that's the corporate takeover of the internet according to PopeRatzo), last.fm, all the blogs that have popped up by experts in their fields, the rise of bittorrent, Steam (for gaming), Google and the many peripheral services they provide, oh I could go on and on.

There's not much to whine about other then the death of usenet (although I insist it died because forum softwares improved and became accessible outside websites such as insidetheweb and ezboards) and the rise of spam.

The underlying technology is just vastly superior, if you disagree you can just shut up and go back to dialup and prove me wrong.

Re:Limey

[inigopete]

Granted a) I'm coming in late to this, and b) I'm using Wikipedia,

IRC appeared in 1988 whereas the Short Message Service was defined in 1985.

...so, remember that there were text messages before anyone knew what an "IRC" was.

Re:Limey

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the real problem is not Facebook, but a system that allows businesses to retroactively and without notification, change the the agreement that the user agreed to when business relationship was first established.

What business relationship? You pay nothing, it should be a hint that you are on the "business part" of the business. Have no expectation of having your say at someone you are not paying. Yes, there is no free lunch. Yes, if you don't see how you are paying for your lunch, it means you ARE lunch. We are lunch also here on Slashdot.

Re:Limey

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, kids: you can't spell panopticon without opt-in!

Re:Limey

[FictionPimp]

Well, first you need to simply squat on some land until you legally own it. Then you need to build your own house from materials found on that land. Finally a generator, a well, and a few million miles of cat5e and your set.

Re:Limey

[mrogers]

What is troubling is the complete willingness of people to give away their private information, and when you ask them why they tolerate a company acting like that, they say "Who cares?"

Nobody I've talked to about this has ever said "Who cares?". The most common reaction is "Yeah, I don't like it either, but all my friends are on Facebook." And that doesn't mean people are mindlessly imitating their friends - "All my friends are on Facebook" means "All my friendships depend, in part, on Facebook."

It's easy to call that shallow, but the fact is that even in solid, long-lasting friendships, visibility matters. Willingly cutting yourself off from contact with your friends for the sake of privacy is seen by many people as a snub, just as it would be if you went into your room and shut the door instead of hanging out in the living room. If people don't see you on Facebook, their first thought isn't likely to be, "Oh, he's probably making a stand against intrusive corporate surveillance. What a great guy. I'll write him a letter instead." In fact their first thought isn't likely to be about you at all, because you just made yourself invisible.

So no, the problem isn't the users. The problem is the marketers who've realised they can use our need to keep in touch with our friends as a lever to extract information we'd never normally reveal to a stranger. The people who deliberately manipulate and exploit us are the ones we should be blaming, not each other.

Re:Limey

[KDEnut]

Actually I *DO* have to use Facebook as a normal course of work. The engineering group in my company (a fortune 500 chemicals company) has been using facebook for years to maintain contacts and disseminate non-critical information.

So yea, I have to use Facebook, but I try to keep it a professional relationship. Still doesn't mean I like being sold off like cattle whenever they want to make more money.

Re:Limey

[betterunixthanunix]

"instead of relying on geocities people register their own .com easily and affordably"

There was a time when you could register a .com at no cost.

Re:Limey

[Lumpy]

You might be. I'm not and my family is not.

I use Mythtv at home. it strips out commercials from TV.

All the computers run privoxy on them to effectively block ad's in a secure way.

I typically only listen to ipod in the car, my wife listens to sirius, but she always changes the channel when ad's come on.

WE are 100% in control of our senses. Nobody get's any adverts to us unless we allow it. It's funny, I'll hear about a movie from a co-worker and they freak when I did not know about it... "TV ad's have been running for a month!" I dont have ad's on my tv.

Re:Limey

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. Yes. See your score. : )

Re:Limey

[Gulthek]

No, I don't find that troubling at all.

"Oh no, my purchases will be used to serve up ads targeted to me!"

I say, great! I know I'd be a hell of a lot happier if Hulu, et al. showed me ads for upcoming videogames, cool new music albums, iPad accessories, and the latest from ThinkGeek. Then advertisement might actually mean something to me. It might actually inform me of a product that I'd like that I didn't know about. Nothing is forcing me to get out my credit card, ads are just information.

Bombard me with unwanted solicitations

You make it sound like combat. If you don't want, don't buy. The big deal, I fail to see it.

Re:Limey

[tehcyder]

Your viewpoint nicely matches your username.

Re:Limey

[bsDaemon]

cash is for old people and terrorists

Re:Limey

[Risen888]

What a bunch of crap. Nobody "asks them why they tolerate a company acting like that." In fact, that's what the article is about. People are starting to ask those questions themselves, and Facebook Inc. is in a total pants-shitting panic over it.

That's what it means when "we may change the terms of service at any time with or without notice." It means you weren't informed. Fundamentally, it means you were lied to. Even if you are part of the 0.05% of people who actually read the TOS before checking the box, it doesn't matter. They could (and do) change all that tomorrow. You act like it's some ideal market of perfectly informed agents. It's the opposite. If you don't find that a problem, why the hell not?

Re:Limey

[uniquegeek]

Hell, banks, cell phone, and cable companies change their service and fees all the time, and we put up with it.

I'm not saying we should put up with it... but bait and switch has been working so long, it's not really a surprise that others do it too. It really makes you wonder why we let it slide when it costs us more money for fewer services than what was originally agreed on.

Re:Limey

[surmak]

What business relationship? You pay nothing, it should be a hint that you are on the "business part" of the business. Have no expectation of having your say at someone you are not paying. Yes, there is no free lunch. Yes, if you don't see how you are paying for your lunch, it means you ARE lunch. We are lunch also here on Slashdot.

There may not be an exchange of money, but there is clearly a relationship between Facebook and their users. Users receive the ability to interact with each other, share picture, etc. Facebook gets eyes for their ads, and data to mine. This is a mutually beneficial situation. What I am opposed to is Facebook changing the terms of that relationship without (most) users being aware of it.

Re:Limey

[DoctorFuji]

Hmm. Whenever I have received mod points, I made sure to use them and not blow it off. And have been pretty consistent in how I used them. Not sure who the mod point gods are but hopefully you didn't do anything in the past to piss them off.

Re:Limey

[DoctorFuji]

I assume Facebook started out with good intentions to be solely a social network with no designs on commercializing the concept. However, the dollar has skewed that. In this case, money talks.

Re:Limey

[The End Of Days]

There was a time when you could have any color on your monitor that you wanted, as long as it was green. Things weren't better back then, except in the minds of the self-appointed "elite" who bemoan that technology is no long the sole province of the unwashed neckbeards.

Re:Limey

[The End Of Days]

If you want absolute control over every detail related to your life, then good luck. Remember, unrealistic expectations are the first step to disappointment

Re:Limey

[ectotherm]

Simple answer to the privacy solution: Don't put any information on Facebook that you don't want used by marketers/against you/exposed to the world. No matter WHAT the Facebook privacy policy says, putting your picture/address/phone number/vacation schedule online is a bad move. Why? Because once the information is out there, it is out of your control. Even if Facebook offers a guaranteed privacy policy that your information will NEVER be shared with ANYONE, what about hackers? What about internal Facebook employees that sell your data on the black market? What about "former" Facebook friends that now decide to do something nasty with your data, e.g. sign you up as a donor/interested party in the Church of Scientology? Think I'm just another "tinfoil-hat wearing paranoiac?" Read Database Nation sometime. A little data goes a long way. http://www.databasenation.com/home.htm The bottom line is that Facebook users need to be smarter about what they put online. Anyone who would put their vacation schedule online, a.k.a. "when I won't be home" is asking to be robbed. By the way, the same applies to Twitter. There was a site set up to illustrate how dumb Twitter users are in announcing where they are every minute of the day http://pleaserobme.com/ Smarten up Facebook denizens. The power to protect your privacy is in YOUR hands. Don't let this issue become another "we need the government to step in" situation. The smart man digs his well BEFORE he is thirsty. Think ahead.

Re:Limey

[ZekoMal]

Indeed. Unless, of course, you joined before they stripped away many privacy rights. Trying to quit now is a laughable joke; once you're in, they tell you that you can't permanently delete your account-unless you tear apart their TOS to find the obscured link that actually does delete your account. That takes two weeks, and according to my friends, I still show up on their friends lists.

Yeah, you don't have to use Facebook. But if you ever join, you never get to leave.

Re:Limey

[Hatta]

Government made the internet, and they goddamn well better get a handle on the corporate takeover of it before it turns completely into cable television.

Or what? You'll vote against them? Oh noes!

Re:Limey

[ZekoMal]

If my friends can't be arsed to grab my name off the contact list on their cellphone or their e-mail, then they ain't much worth having. I actually hang out with my friends, too; so if they feel that I'm not a friend just because I don't have a Facebook, then they can go eat a shoe. It's only been around for a few years, and I'm not about to have my friendships marginalized away just because I hopped off that bandwagon.

Re:Limey

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do internet sites like facebook feel the need to dig so deep into each user's history just to advertise though? Someone pointed out that television and radio have worked off anonymous ads for 50-80 years, and they don't need to know my list of friends or political leanings to do it. They work off of demographics, not specifics. Advertisers may be demanding far too much (still treating the internet as a risky experiment) or the sites may be hoping for more than they deserve. Ads can be loosely targetted without all this invasive crap they're pushing.
I'm not leaving facebook yet, because I'm not a "love it or leave it" type, but changing the TOS at will and saying "tough" is no way to run a business. Hopefully their mid-20's 'I'm CEO...bitch' will wise up at some point

Re:Limey

[Hatta]

Quit painting "corporate" America as the evil and "government" as the good slayer of dragons; they're a two-headed beast, often times the two are indistinguishable.

You're right, to a point. Both corporations and the government are the enemy. But as Chomsky says at least governments are potentially democratic. Corporations are pure tyrannies.

I find it "curious" that this corporate takeover happened exactly when slow and shitty dialup died and DSL and Cable became popular. I guess there is something inherent in broadband that let the big mean corporations rise up...So what am I supposed to conclude from THIS? That the corporations... improved things? (note: most ISPs even then were corporate-owned; I think you just really hate the word "corporate," so I can't be sure what you even mean by it).

Here's where you go all wrong. It's not the corporations that made the internet better, it's the technology. That corporations control cable in a way that they don't control dial-up (e.g. anyone can talk to anyone else over the phone network) is just a historical accident. Send the government in to force the cable companies to lease bandwidth to smaller isps (after all they built that network with the help of the public.), that way we get all the benefits of the better technology, and the benefits of smaller ISPs.

Re:Limey

[siride]

Actually, no. People might put stuff up about you, but it's in unstructured form, not easily searchable and probably not well-tracked even by Facebook. You might be in a photo, but you probably won't be tagged, you'll just have your first name tagged, and that isn't searchable. Someone might mention you in a post, but that's unstructured data. They might as well mention you on a blog for all it's worth.

If you really want never to be mentioned, then live a private life with no friends. Wait, this is a Slashdot, so that shouldn't be too hard for most here.

Re:Limey

[siride]

So you are pretty much stealing content. It's not free; it costs a lot to make and they nicely provide it to you without a cash transaction if you can just sit through a few advertisements. But instead, you treat it like they are infringing on your "rights" and block the only thing that might make them money.

Re:Limey

[eleuthero]

I did recently go back from 10 points to five and while I'm sure there's something in the FAQ about the amount change or whatever, there should be a TLDR-type meme related to link clicking.

Re:Limey

[SatanicPuppy]

Funny, I thought he was referring to the print media industry, which has been around for the last 500 years or so.

Re:Limey

[Sir Holo]

I think the real problem is not Facebook, but a system that allows businesses to retroactively and without notification, change the the agreement that the user agreed to when business relationship was first established.

There is no business relationship. FB is free.

Re:Limey

[wfeick]

Um, lots of businesses are already doing this.

Re:Limey

[retardpicnic]

This is exactlty where I find issue with so much of the whining I hear surrounding this issue. To be able to have a sense of victimhood AND entitlement at the same time is nothing short of amazing. Let me assure you that YOU, personally are completely responsible for every single thing that you type. An assumption of privacy on a free! web! app! (with known and public) is beyond naive. RTFM Not to mention this this problem could be seen coming for miles and miles and miles, has so much precedent with respect to other apps having the same issue. Users like you are like the parents of the last kid to sleep at michael jacksons house acting surprised when the kid claimed he was diddled. what the #%$@ were you expecting?

Re:Limey

[An ominous Cow art]

You also can't spell it without "con".

Re:Limey

[Anonymous Coward]

How they get money is not my concern. I will control what I see and hear, not them.

Re:Limey

[RobertM1968]

I don't particularly find Facebook's stance and practices on privacy anymore troubling that societies general attitude toward to the subject.

If by society, you mean governments, then yes, you are correct. But that doesnt mean that it's a good thing. What you posted is like saying "I dont find that murderer any worse than this murderer over here"

Re:Limey

[MindlessAutomata]

Oh, great, a CHOMSKY quote.

Corporations are potentially democratic too. Hell, both government and corporations are POTENTIALLY anything. Hell, corporations in a sense are democratic as they're run largely by shareholders. And again, you can avoid doing business with a corporation, so whatever kind of "tyranny" it is (what an equivocation!) it's not the same kind that

Also, Chomsky ignores the fact that democracy can be totalitarian. In fact, many features of ours certainly is.

Here's where you go all wrong. It's not the corporations that made the internet better, it's the technology. That corporations control cable in a way that they don't control dial-up (e.g. anyone can talk to anyone else over the phone network) is just a historical accident. Send the government in to force the cable companies to lease bandwidth to smaller isps (after all they built that network with the help of the public.), that way we get all the benefits of the better technology, and the benefits of smaller ISPs.

No, I was turning his logic against him, of course it's the technology.

Re:Limey

[MindlessAutomata]

Oh? I'm unfamiliar with that, elaborate.

In any case, the .com registering system is entirely flawed, and is a centralized portion of the internet that I wish wasn't as it was.

Re:Limey

[nametaken]

I love this kind of ranting... like it's this new conspiracy.

Commerce and power influence government?! GTFO!!

Seriously, what exactly do you people think has changed over the last 10,000 years?

Re:Limey

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious? Our eyes and minds are being sold to advertisers and you don't find that troubling? We are not the consumers any more, we are the product. If society mimicked Facebook you're damned right there'd be privacy concerns. If I stop by a motorcycle shop to buy some oil and they sold that information to other distributors without my consent so they could bombard me with unwanted solicitations there would be hell to pay.

Of course they would never do that! Hey, would you like to sign up for the sweepstakes? or this raffle thing to win a new car?

Really, you haven't been bothered in the mall? or seen the little slips of paper next to brand new automobiles parked in the mdidle of the hallway?

Yes, people have been trying to steal your personal info and build a profile on you since before the internet.

Re:Limey

[mrogers]

I completely agree that you need to make an effort to keep a friendship going, and time together in person is worth a thousand times more than Facebook - but that doesn't mean everyone's good at making the effort, especially when Facebook keeps pushing the right buttons to keep them interested in their Facebook-using friends. Not having a Facebook account has had an impact on some of my friendships - claiming otherwise would just be wishful thinking. I'm prepared to pay that price because I hate the game Facebook's playing, but I sympathise with people who don't weigh things up in the same way.

Re:Limey

[Eskarel]

Personally I rather agree with you with regards to targetted advertising. I think that generally speaking it probably doesn't have much better ROI than regular advertisement.

The issue is that advertisers, or at least the people wh pay them, think that it does. This means that targetted advertising, and more importantly, the data sets required to target it, are incredibly valuable. Even more importantly that data is why so many companies paid so much money for facebook.

Re:Limey

[Lumpy]

yes I am. And I am VERY PROUD of it. So proud that I teach others how to steal the content, and I encourage young people to do the same.

Steal the content every chance you get.

Any grownups work there?

[18_Rabbit]

Because they are going to need some, and soon. EVERY time they make a change to the privacy scheme, it's ridiculous and gets the whole user base riled up.

Re:Any grownups work there?

[pclminion]

If the user base gets riled up, then riled up again, then riled up some more, than extra-special-super riled up, and they keep subjecting themselves to it... Then the user base is full of morons. Admit it, you people are hooked on the crack.

Re:Any grownups work there?

[Roberticus]

You oversimplify. Facebook changes privacy policy for the worse, users complain, Facebook backs off (though rarely all the way) or offers (torturous and convoluted) ways to bypass new privacy violations.

I won't dispute the "base is full morons" point, but to say everyone there just whines to no effect is inaccurate.

Re:Any grownups work there?

[bhtooefr]

My answer? They've got a track record of disrespecting privacy, and now that they've demonstrated that, I'm going to leave Facebook by July 4 if they don't fix everything, and I'm trying to get a million people to do the same.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=117283144970446

Re:Any grownups work there?

[bsane]

Yeah because signing up for another public facebook group is the way to show them you don't want to have your information shared with the world...

Re:Any grownups work there?

[L4t3r4lu5]

It totally works.

Re:Any grownups work there?

[Stepnsteph]

My guess is that you don't have a Facebook account or you rarely use it, because the issue of Facebook goes well beyond "crack" or such.

A.) Everybody at your university has Facebook.

B.) You need to communicate with a group, and by "communicate", I mean time, date, activities, who is doing what in those activities, what is required for those activities (eg; clothing? tools?), everyone's office hours, and a plethora of other information.

C.) Everybody has very random schedules, and at least a few live 30 minutes out of town

Anybody who even dares to suggest email for this is utterly clueless. Also, anyone who suggests that "everyone just use this-other-system instead" has clearly never tried to get a large group of every day people (particularly college students, none of which are technology majors of any sort), who are in turn tied to other people who are tied to the system who are tied to other people, to begin using something new.

Additionally you have the international students who are nearly impossible to keep in contact with, especially through any other means. Typically they'll have their own system (eg; Cyworld), but those systems will require a national identification number that only citizens of that country have. Therefore you can not join those systems and thus you use Facebook.

Lastly, the friends who you have, and who all have random schedules due to classes that take place all over the day-by-day calendar in addition to jobs, sports, and other activities all have Facebook. Ergo you all continue to use Facebook. Again, just try to get these people - who know people other than you who are all similarly tied to Facebook - to use anything other than Facebook.

If someone still can't understand all of the above and STILL says "will I don't see why you don't just close your FB account & use this-whatever instead" then that someone has clearly never socialized and they probably should not comment on a subject which they have less than zero understanding of.

It's not about YOU, it's about EVERYONE, and that's why you can check in but you can never leave.

Re:Any grownups work there?

[SatanicPuppy]

Just like college. When the administration wanted to do something unpopular, they did something WILDLY unpopular, let people protest for a while, and then rolled it back to what they wanted in the first place, telling everyone that their voices had been heard.

Works every time. People are dumb.

Re:Any grownups work there?

[bhtooefr]

I actually removed a lot of Facebook groups from my profile.

And, the idea is that Facebook themselves can see more easily if it's on their site. ;)

Will the meeting be webcast by default?

[Anonymous Coward]

They could opt out of a public webcast, unless the TOS changes later without them knowing about it.

Overheard at the meeting

[fustakrakich]

Alright guys, what are we going to do about these damn privacy dweebs?

Re:Overheard at the meeting

[GrumblyStuff]

I imagine it's closer to this PA strip: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/12/5/

"Our users are complaining when we fuck them in the ass."

"Well, we could use lube or we the ball gag."

"Hmmm..."

Here's the problem.

[AnonymousClown]

"I see the clouds of a civil war on the horizon between users and the platform vendors as users want more discrete control over their history, privacy and data, and the platform vendors who drive advertising and data mining businesses."

The ability of Facebook to generate revenues requires the exploitation of their users data and their privacy - if they want to keep it "free" for the users. Otherwise they'll have to charge a subscription.

Advertising on pages for revenue? Enough to pay the bills let alone drive the sky high stock prices?

Ask the management of Digg and Slashdot about that.

Re:Here's the problem.

[Pojut]

If they offered the option of a subscription service, and in return I got no advertising and had complete control over my privacy settings, I would totally do it. I use Facebook a lot, not just to interact with my friends, but to get the word out about updates to my website and new music tracks I make. $5-$10 a month for something as ubiquitous as Facebook would be well worth the money, in my opinion.

Re:Here's the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

For as much flack as Google gets around here lately, they do a pretty decent job of selling advertising without completely raping their users' privacy.

And, no Facebook, changing your privacy policies every 6 months and then claiming your users are consenting because they didn't opt-out of the 120 new "please sell my ass to the highest bidder" boxes that are confusingly labeled and located on 50 different pages doesn't cut it.

Re:Here's the problem.

[Wyatt Earp]

I'd drop $5 on Fark before I'd drop $5 on Facebook.

Re:Here's the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right now you would, but would you still if all the people who *wouldn't* switched to the next best free social network?

Re:Here's the problem.

[HiThere]

You'd trust them to keep their word at *this* point?

They've already promised to keep things secret, and then sold them. They'd need something considerably more binding than a mere promise before I'd trust them now. Can't think what would work, but I'm not guaranteeing that there isn't something. E.g., if they offered a public key system, I wouldn't trust them not to, at some point, hack the code. But that doesn't prove that there isn't something they could offer that I'd accept. (I just don't believe it.)

P.S.: FWIW, I never signed up for Facebook in the first place, largely because of doubts as to the honesty of their promises (and otherwise the security of their code).

P.P.S.: This is Google, isn't it? The company who once was known as "Do no evil"?

Re:Here's the problem.

[owlnation]

"The ability of Facebook to generate revenues requires the exploitation of their users data and their privacy - if they want to keep it "free" for the users."

The HELL it does. That's 100% NOT true. That may well be the spin their marketing droids spout, but it is absolutely not, in any way, true.

TV advertising remains the most lucrative form of advertising. It does not require detailed information about all its viewers. They know demographics, and they occasionally survey samples to validate that, but no personal information is needed. And this system works.

It is pretty easy to work out Facebook demographics. They do not need to target-market to this level of granularity. The only reason they are doing so, is because people at Facebook (and Google for that matter) are letting them.

There's enough eyes on Facebook that they WILL generate revenue from ads targeted at the whole Facebook demographic, rather than individually targeted ads.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that Facebook needs to hand over private information -- other than naked greed.

Re:Here's the problem.

[BikeHelmet]

$5-$10 a month for something as ubiquitous as Facebook would be well worth the money, in my opinion.

I'd pay $12/year. Okay, maybe $15, because Paypal takes a cut.

Re:Here's the problem.

[Rival]

If they offered the option of a subscription service, and in return I got no advertising and had complete control over my privacy settings, I would totally do it. I use Facebook a lot, not just to interact with my friends, but to get the word out about updates to my website and new music tracks I make. $5-$10 a month for something as ubiquitous as Facebook would be well worth the money, in my opinion.

You will never have "complete control over your privacy settings" as long as Facebook keeps the "Friend's Apps Have Access To Your Data" permission. Facebook will not remove that, because if they did, major application developers would stop making free Facebook apps. Access to your personal information is why Zynga (the maker of virtually ALL the most popular Facebook applications) gives away their games.

The real problem is that Facebook suckers people in with a semblance of privacy and control over it, then changes the Terms of Service -- over and over again, often with little or no notice -- then makes the changes retroactive and sells your personal information to all interested parties.

If they defaulted to sane privacy settings and opt-in marketing "features", there would be no current uproar. They could still make money from ads like normal sites do; they already have insane numbers of page hits. If they behaved responsibly in this way, and then offered enhanced functionality (such as customizable layouts, themes, members-only applications, &c.) for a monthly or annual fee, then I would very likely subscribe. I do use Facebook on a daily basis to keep in touch with friends and family around the world, and in that regard it works quite well.

But who am I kidding? Their track record is soiled so badly that it would take a complete change of ownership, management, privacy settings and implementation, before I could trust them enough to type any credit card or other payment information in the same browser session as Facebook -- let alone into their page.

Re:Here's the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not working. I don't know who you are.

Re:Here's the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is not targeted ads. I don't mind having targeted ads at all. What I do mind is that stuff that I wanted to keep private being suddenly open to Everyone and to my friends and networks. Yes.. it's naked greed indeed. I disabled my account earlier today and don't see myself going back. Too much of a time sink anyway.

Re:Here's the problem.

[nacturation]

If you remove all apps, you can then remove the ability for apps to get any of your info. Unless, of course, they've modified that ability since I took those steps.

Re:Here's the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

What percentage of Facebook would drop out if they charged a subscription for access? How would that affect you exposure on Facebook? How much would that change affect your valuation of a subscription to Facebook?
Facebook = free ... potential audience = everyone.
Facebook = $/mo ... potential audience = closed community of subscribers.

Re:Here's the problem.

[Luke has no name]

They shouldn't be such greedy bastards trying for "sky high stock prices". I contend that they could have maintained opt-in for targeted services, personalizing ads as much as they could for each user, according to how much the user allowed to the public.

They just got greedy.

Also, there is less incentive for me to post my public information online:
Let's face it, Facebook is the closest thing to a verifiable online identity there is at the moment. A few years ago, one was able to search for other people in their "network" by many criteria, like 'relationship status', 'Looking for', and all their interests, etc. Basically, you could use it as a quasi-dating site. I wouldn't mind putting some of my information up to allow potential companions to find me. But when the only people looking at my information are advertisers and people who already know me, how much shit do you think I'm going to post about myself online? There's no motivation.

Here's what Facebook should do to shut people up and forget this ever happened:

1) Move back to more private default privacy settings. Nothing should be open to the entire Internet by default, and none of our personally identifiable information should be made available to third parties without our explicit consent. I believe it is possible to provide targeted advertising to consumers without providing personal details to advertisers: Facebook is the middle-man.

2) Allow users to access and search other peoples' private information; why should the companies be the only ones to data-mine?

3) Do not alter the Terms of Service without explicitly notifying all users and allowing some pre-determined number of days for users to discuss and react to the proposals (by protesting it, supporting it, or closing their accounts, even. TOS amendments are a big deal).

Facebook is a huge website with great power. Peter Parker says it well: With great power comes great responsibility. Don't be evil, Facebook. Don't be greedy, either. Have some morals.

Re:Here's the problem.

[Yvanhoe]

Keep it free, have users host it. That's what P2P was supposed to be about : shared hosting.

Re:Here's the problem.

[Mechanik]

The problem is not targeted ads. I don't mind having targeted ads at all. What I do mind is that stuff that I wanted to keep private being suddenly open to Everyone and to my friends and networks. Yes.. it's naked greed indeed. I disabled my account earlier today and don't see myself going back. Too much of a time sink anyway.

Agreed. The targeted ads themselves don't give the advertiser any of your data.

I actually ran an ad on Facebook for a couple of months to advertise the Fan Page for a charity that I volunteer for (shameless plug... it's the National Wild Turkey Federation). All the ad targeting does is select parameters to match when deciding whether to show your ad to people. You can select things like gender, age, location, interests, etc. It tells you roughly how many people will match your criteria. As an advertiser, this is REALLY useful. I was able to target my ad and say "I only want to show this thing to people over 18 within 50 miles of my city that are interested in X, Y, and Z". That is the kind of direct targetability that everyone in the advertising industry wants. If someone doesn't match your criteria, they just plain won't be shown your ad, and you won't have to pay.

It does NOT give you a list of their names and/or profiles, or anything else of their information. You get a number that says your criteria matches X number of profiles. That is it. And it does this without those profiles needing the information your criteria tries to match being public. I really fail to see how it's any invasion of privacy in and of itself.

I'm not claiming that Facebook doesn't have some shitty privacy policies of late, but as the parent states, the targeted ads are not the problem here.

Re:Here's the problem.

[Siridar]

ahh, but if your friends don't remove *their* apps, they'll have access to your data. Have you ever noticed there's no "block all apps, except those that I specifically allow" option?

Re:Here's the problem.

[tehcyder]

If they offered the option of a subscription service, and in return I got no advertising and had complete control over my privacy settings, I would totally do it. I use Facebook a lot, not just to interact with my friends, but to get the word out about updates to my website and new music tracks I make. $5-$10 a month for something as ubiquitous as Facebook would be well worth the money, in my opinion.

You'd be in a tiny minority then. For better or worse, most internet services that depend on consumers paying a regular subscription don't work any more.

Re:Here's the problem.

[drinkypoo]

If you remove all apps, you can then remove the ability for apps to get any of your info. Unless, of course, they've modified that ability since I took those steps.

Friends' apps can still see [and thus share] any data you've specified friends should see. Bottom line, don't put secret information on facebook, and don't make stupid people your friends.

Re:Here's the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

The ability of Facebook to generate revenues requires the exploitation of their users data and their privacy - if they want to keep it "free" for the users.

What exactly is so wrong with having the option of paying for a subscription? I'm not on facebook at the moment but I'd gladly pay $5 a month if that would allow me to set it so that none of my data would be public. Why use facebook then? I would still want to share stuff with my friends, but only with my friends. I don't want to share anything with the public at large or with random corporations.

Re:Here's the problem.

[BaronHethorSamedi]

$5-$10 a month for something as ubiquitous as Facebook would be well worth the money, in my opinion.

I have a feeling that, at $5-$10 a month, it would get a lot less ubiquitous.

Re:Here's the problem.

[SatanicPuppy]

People always say this, but no one ever says, "Hey, wait a minute, we're not talking about TV."

TV advertising is a wholly different beast. You're talking about a handful of free channels that are available to everyone in the damn country: a huge captive audience, who is forced to sit through 15 to 30 seconds of moving pictures with sound.

Those ads are pretty fucking lucrative, no lie. Internet ads? Not so much. Facebook's bandwidth, staffing, hardware, and electrical bills stagger the mind, and they make pennies per ad. You need to do the math. Facebook didn't make a profit until they started pimping you with targeted ads.

Re:Here's the problem.

[nacturation]

Privacy Settings > Applications and Websites > What your friends can share about you

Uncheck every box in that setting to prevent third party apps from getting any info. If I recall, you can only uncheck all of them if you have no apps yourself. I don't know if that excludes certain information, but it appears fairly comprehensive.

Re:Here's the problem.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

For as much flack as Google gets around here lately, they do a pretty decent job of selling advertising without completely raping their users' privacy.

You think so? Do you still think so after you remember that every time you view an ad from google, every time you click on an outbound link from google search results, every time you visit a site that uses google syndication, every time you visit a site that uses google analytics... you're telling google that you're there, where you came from, and often where you're going? If you have a google account, this isn't nebulous aggregate data either, it's information about what *you* are doing on the Internet. (Otherwise it's limited to your IP - which can stay unchanging for months or longer under many broadband providers now)

We often think "privacy" concerns are about what providers do in terms about selling our data -- but those same concerns exist in terms of how they use our data. We just don't hear about it as much.

Privacy is only one issue...

[Statecraftsman]

I would also like to see them offer some sort of standard way to export a user's photos, conversations, friend graph, and everything else needed to leave without being able to carry on some sort of continuous existence on another system. I would also like them to AGPL their software but I'm realistic and expect export is the best they will do so long as they're not challenged by a new system with the freedom to migrate.

Re:Privacy is only one issue...

[Statecraftsman]

s/leave without/leave while/

Yes, I promise to use the Preview stage in earnest from now on.

Re:Privacy is only one issue...

[T Murphy]

Just pose as an advertiser wanting 's information. You should also get all the additional information you didn't even know they had, in case you wanted to violate your privacy on the next networking site.

Re:Privacy is only one issue...

[gmuslera]

If you pay them enough, they will give you all that info, about you and everyone else.

Gander, Goose

[Anne_Nonymous]

I wonder if they'd care to post a transcript of the meeting to their own website.

Re:Gander, Goose

[blair1q]

I wonder if they'd care to post the names, birth dates, family trees, and work and school histories of everyone who attends the meeting to their own website.

Re:Gander, Goose

[Anonymous Coward]

That idiom doesn't mean what you think it means

Re:Gander, Goose

[Buelldozer]

Of course not. They only want YOUR information to be public!

Re:Gander, Goose

[Gulthek]

If you've posted information to Facebook, it's Facebook's information. You gave it to them.

Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[rsborg]

Link:

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks.

Wonder how much this new released IM thread has to do with this "All-Hands".

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[kuzb]

Just deleted my account. Screw facebook.

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[blind biker]

Thanks for that link. Well, I guess from now on I am allowed to tell Facebook users that they are "dumb fucks" according to the Facebook founder and CEO.

It always felt quite good not to be a Facebook user, but now it's even more pleasant!

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[QuietLagoon]

That is exactly the problem. The company reflects the attitude of those who run it. So long as Zuckerberg has no concern about the privacy of the users of Facebook, there will be no privacy for the users of Facebook. The "all hands" meeting is little more than a public relations event to give the illusion that Faebook is doing something about privacy.

.

The only way to bring privacy and security to Facebook is to replace Zuckerberg with someone who cares about the privacy of Facebook users. Until Zuckerberg is replaced, little or nothing will change.

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

Five bucks says the meeting is less about how to respect peoples' privacy than it is about how to more surreptitiously subvert it.

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[Hadlock]

I haven't gone that far... yet. I've redacted pretty much all my information, photos etc at this point. According to their privacy statement, all of that is removed from their database after 90 days. Tick tock, tick tock...
 
If it gets much worse though, I think Facebook can start seeing a mass exodus, Myspace style.
 
Thing is, how much is my data really worth to Facebook?? I'd gladly pay $20 a year to keep my privacy.

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[Cosgrach]

The solution is clear - Kill Zukerberg. Problem solved.

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[Culture20]

Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks.

Comment to the article: @lilywhite:
Agree. And to add, unless someone goes through major trauma in their lives, usually their base character and beliefs do not change. Thus, it is prudent for us to judge Zuckerberg based on these IM's he sent when he was 19. Yes, we mature as we grow older, but these IM's show that deep down Zuckerberg does not care so much about privacy.

No, this IM shows that deep down, Zuckerberg _does_ care about privacy, and that he thinks other people should too. He disparages people for giving up that privacy.

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[EdIII]

I would delete my account.... but.... why?

The name on the account is fake. Email address used to sign up is a fake one-off account I log into once in awhile to keep active just for Facebook. Nobody I know in real life knows the name on my Facebook account. I have never connected up to facebook with the actual IP address of my current location.

It was only ever for Mafia Wars, of which, I have thousands of Facebook "friends" now.

So once again, I question why I would want to delete it at all? Probably a pretty good bet that a good percentage of the alleged 400 million Facebook users are just bullshit accounts set up for a purpose other than using Facebook as it was intended.

In fact, I bet if Zynga were to pick up and leave that half of Facebook would be gone with them.

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. I hope I can be a rebel and brag like you someday.

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[blai]

http://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[GoochOwnsYou]

Enough people boycott Facebook, he will be replaced.

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll see your five bucks and raise you 10 billies.

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[RabbitWho]

I'm afraid if I delete my account my parents will stop talking to me..

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[FictionPimp]

Look on the bright side. You won't have to keep fixing their computer....

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[improfane]

I thought it shows how he values his own privacy and thinks others are silly for trusting others, such as himself. He has found a way to profit from stupidity.

In other words, he is malicious.

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[metrometro]

Most of the data value you provide to Facebook (for free! how kind of you!) is in the actual social graph. You can delete all your personal content and it won't matter because, in aggregate, people are very similar to their friends. So Facebook knows who "you" are (because you only matter there in your patterns of consumption) and can now monetize that knowledge with or without your cooperation. Just FYI.

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm planning on waiting for a decent alternative, then clearing my profile of everything but a link to the new network. Then for good friend-list obfuscation, I'll send out a few thousand random invites and set my account to auto-accept.

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[Nerdposeur]

No, this IM shows that deep down, Zuckerberg _does_ care about privacy, and that he thinks other people should too. He disparages people for giving up that privacy.

Um... what? If this exchange is genuine (the source is extremely vague), it shows that, yes, he probably values his own privacy, but not anyone else's. If he thought "other people should too," he would be campaigning to inform people about privacy concerns, not actively destroying their privacy for his own benefit.

If you're a burglar, you'll probably make fun of people for their weak home security. You don't want your house broken into, but you sure don't want everybody else getting smart. This hardly shows that you "care."

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard rumors that that's going to, in fact, happen. I hate to quote Fox News, but here you go:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/14/facebook-ban-farmville/

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

What the zuck?

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[SatanicPuppy]

Look, it's a business. They're there to make money. The only thing they have that they can make money with, is your user information. The desire for them to pimp it to the highest bidder is overwhelming. It wouldn't matter if they put Jesus Christ in charge of the company, in six weeks he'd be selling your info to porn companies.

If you want to have a service that is accountable to you, you need to have a service that is beholden to you. A service that you pay for. This is the dark side of free-as-in-beer: they don't need to give a shit about you. Who are you? Some sheep who bowed to the pressure to put all their life in some random shmucks application. You're not going anywhere. If you had willpower or good judgment, you wouldn't have put all your info there in the first place.

It blows my mind to see people on fricking Slashdot acting like a bunch of unsavvy children, "How could they use my info! Boo hoo, I feel so dirty!"

If you went out and created a profile, and put a ton of content on a free service with the misconception that they were your friend, and had your best interests at heart, you are a fool.

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[Hadlock]

Well good for them! They have to pay for that website (and their new datacenter) somehow. Demographic data isn't the same as personal data, however.

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[Culture20]

No, this IM shows that deep down, Zuckerberg _does_ care about privacy, and that he thinks other people should too. He disparages people for giving up that privacy.

Um... what? If this exchange is genuine (the source is extremely vague), it shows that, yes, he probably values his own privacy, but not anyone else's. If he thought "other people should too," he would be campaigning to inform people about privacy concerns, not actively destroying their privacy for his own benefit. If you're a burglar, you'll probably make fun of people for their weak home security. You don't want your house broken into, but you sure don't want everybody else getting smart. This hardly shows that you "care."

If a burglar doesn't believe that other people do or should care about home security, they would just smash a window whether someone was home or not, and be genuinely surprised if the homeowner pulled a gun on them. One who believes that other people should/do care about home security case a house first, making sure that no one is home, there's no big dogs, no alarms, easy access, etc.

Zuckerberg believes that people _should_ want more privacy. He's happy in his specific case that they don't yet. If he didn't think the harvard folks should care about privacy, his response would have been "They gave the information to me, it's not like it's secret info". Instead, his response was literally "Dumb Fucks". He thinks they're stupid for not monitoring their privacy. Now here's where he can make a choice to be good or evil (apparently you are good by nature since you think it's natural that he'd want to help people be more private). Zuck chooses malignant evil: even though he recognizes that they're unwittingly exposing themselves, he uses it as an opportunity to take advantage of them, not educate them.

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[bingoUV]

If a burglar doesn't believe that other people do or should care about home security, they would just smash a window whether someone was home or not, and be genuinely surprised if the homeowner pulled a gun on them.

"Do" - yes. "Should" - only a really stupid burglar. Any sane person would believe that other people should take care of their own health. This doesn't mean the said sane person would get "genuinely surprised" if he observes that other people in fact do not take care of their own health.

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear

[QuietLagoon]

Look, it's a business. They're there to make money. The only thing they have that they can make money with, is your user information.

.

I have no problem with businesses making money with my user information, providing I give them permission to do so. That is the fundamental problem with Facebook. The constantly changing and devolving respect of privacy is reducing the control I have over my privacy.

Posting private info to a public website

[Mr. Neutron]

My opinion is that if you post personally identifiable information to a public website, and expect that information to be kept from all the world's eyeballs, you're being incredibly foolish.

I'm not saying Facebook has no responsibility here, just that people should take care to only share in a public forum what they are comfortable sharing with the entire universe. My Facebook profile contains nothing that I wouldn't want my mom, boss, pastor, or future employer to see.

I'm probably departing Facebook because... well... just watch the South Park Facebook episode and that sums up everything I hate about it.

Privacy? I don't post private stuff to a public website, no matter how much they promise only to share that stuff with "friends" and "networks."

Re:Posting private info to a public website

[twidarkling]

You don't "depart" facebook. You can't delete your profile. Trust me. I tried. The best you can do is remove *most* of the information, and try and falsify the rest, and then hope they don't go too far in to the backups to get your old information.

Re:Posting private info to a public website

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree.

But what about when I configure my Facebook account to only share information with people on my friends list. That's the first thing I did when I signed up. And yet at least 3 times now Facebook has changed their privacy policies and set all or parts of my private account to be public by default. Literally, every 3-6 months there's some new "feature" rolled out that, by default, shares my private information publicly unless I specifically opt-out... by finding the confusingly labeled checkbox on an account settings page three links deep.

Re:Posting private info to a public website

[rueger]

You can (allegedly) actually delete it, but you need to find the secret link and wait out a two week cooling off period.

In several US States you can actually buy a handgun faster than you can delete your Facebook account.

Re:Posting private info to a public website

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, what about say, an iPhone app? Should it be allowed to grab any of your personal information (like your location, or your address book, or anything) and snarf it into a server somewhere? I'm just saying maintaining privacy in the digital age is more than just a question of not posting pix of your drunken spring break fiesta. And it's beyond your control in some cases where it shouldn't be.

Re:Posting private info to a public website

[Jon-1]

My opinion is that if you post personally identifiable information to a public website, and expect that information to be kept from all the world's eyeballs, you're being incredibly foolish.

I couldn't agree more. What I don't care for is now my consumption of other content on the internet is being shared, via Facebook, without my consent.

Re:Posting private info to a public website

[drooling-dog]

My Facebook profile contains nothing that I wouldn't want my mom, boss, pastor, or future employer to see.

It may more likely be your (public) list of friends, rather than any other particular piece of info that you choose to share, that creates problems in the future. There was a time back in the 50s when just being seen talking to the wrong person could land you on a blacklist.

I still find the idea that people willingly post lists of all their friends and acquaintances for anyone to see to be a bit mind-boggling. Shit does happen. Then again, maybe I draw suspicion on myself for not doing just that...

Re:Posting private info to a public website

[Muggins the Mad]

My opinion is that if you post personally identifiable information to a public website, and expect that information to be kept from all the world's eyeballs, you're being incredibly foolish.

The problem is you can't control what other people post.

I create an account with just my name and use it to keep in touch with my friends and family.

It doesn't take long before someone posts a photo from my birthday party and annotates my name. A quick grab of my friends list reveals some workmates, one of whom has a map of the office.

so without me doing anything but putting up my name and a list of friends, anyone can now work out where I live, work, when my birthday is, and what I look like.

I deleted my FB profile a while back and am glad I did.

- Muggins

Re:Posting private info to a public website

[DigitAl56K]

My opinion is that if you post personally identifiable information to a public website

Part of the problem is that these are not entirely "public" websites, and there were promises about your privacy in Facebook's published policies. Over time those policies have changed, and by consequence the level of privacy has changed despite what was originally promised. If privacy changes are retrospective in effect to their application to your submitted information that's very, very bad. If your argument is that nobody should have any expectation of privacy even on a website with a published privacy policy and "privacy controls", I think that your argument is wrong and instead companies who don't stick to their own promises should face some consequences, as their users inevitably will.

I suggest you take a look at this timeline from the EFF:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline

Re:Posting private info to a public website

[slasho81]

Watch the South Park episode mentioned above: http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/267112

Re:Posting private info to a public website

[Anonymous Coward]

Well of course.
In LA, you
1) choose your handgun
2) fill out a form
3) they call it in
4) you pay for it
5) they walk you to the front of the store
6) they sign it out of the inventory
7) they give you your new handgun

Took me less than 30 minutes to from step 2-7. Step 1 took me two years.

Re:Posting private info to a public website

[Anonymous Coward]

In several US States you can actually buy a handgun faster than you can delete your Facebook account.

I like where this is going.

Re:Posting private info to a public website

[cpankonien]

exactly. i'm not concerned about ANYTHING i post to facebook, because i expect it to be seen by others. isn't that the whole point? if you post something ANYWHERE on the internet and expect it to be kept private, you're an idiot.

Re:Posting private info to a public website

[Cryolithic]

It's who the others are that concerns me. When I joined facebook years ago, it was a great tool to connect with friends that live in the city I previously lived in. These are people I genuinely want to stay in contact with and know how they are doing, but I am not a phone type of person. I don't like talking on the phone, so this was a great way to stay in contact. Everything in my profile at that time was shared *only* with these people. As time has passed and Facebook changed it's TOS, more of my stuff has become available to the entire internet. This is not what I want.

Re:Posting private info to a public website

[novalis112]

My opinion is that if you post personally identifiable information to a public website, and expect that information to be kept from all the world's eyeballs, you're being incredibly foolish.

I understand the general idea of what you (and many other bewildered Slashdotters) are saying, but you just don't get it. Yes, the website is publicly accessible, I mean, duh, *all* Internet websites are publicly accessible. Would you recommend not entering personally identifiable information into your banking website? Or your Federal Income Tax Return website? Just because the website is publicly accessible, does not mean that the information you enter into it should be publicly accessible. Now I can forgive a bad programmer for *accidentally* sharing my information without my consent, but that is a far cry from *intentionally* doing so.

The idea of using Facebook without entering personally identifiable information is like recommending that we have sex without touching anyone else. The whole point (as I, and I suspect many others, see it) is to share personally identifiable information with YOUR FRIENDS. What on Earth else would you do with a Facebook account?

Re:Posting private info to a public website

[Requiem18th]

My Facebook profile contains nothing that I wouldn't want my mom, boss, pastor, or future employer to see.

Or so you think, but consider this:

EFF's Panopticlick Demo Uses browser headers to identify you even with cookies. Now imagine some site, maybe a spammer or phisher honeypot site, or just a asshole gaming site that got the idea that it needed to track everything about you and got compromised one day.

Of course facebook must surely be tracking that too and it will want to correlate it with has many websites as posible, those websites will be wanting the same and I'm sure they'll find some agreement.

Add to that that you only need one of your friends to fill the wrong quiz for all of your data to be spilled in "public".

Congratulations, now someone has made a link to both, your employer and that 4chan photo of you bragging about writing a virus when you were just a 10yo script kiddie.

Did you had a career change in mind?

Of course I don't think there is much I've done that could be use against me nor I have any big enemies, today. But I may get an enemy in the future and... what were the Cardinal's words again...?

Re:Posting private info to a public website

[gknoy]

Have you looked at the web 2.0 suicide machine? I think it's http://www.suicidemachine.org/ . It'll automate a bunch of that.

Re:Posting private info to a public website

[growlingchaos]

So you can delete yourself IRL faster then your Facebook account? Gross...

Re:Posting private info to a public website

[bwintx]

Not right now it won't. They got hacked.

Re:Posting private info to a public website

[Anonymous Coward]

Shooting yourself does not equate to deleting yourself, as you still exist in a government database of vital statistics somewhere.

Also, you may make fine compost out of yourself, so you should consider it recycling rather than deleting.

Re:Posting private info to a public website

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually so long as the FBI online database service is up you can buy a gun instantly. Perhaps a few jurisdictions have put up their own waiting period but I suspect that's the exception, not the rule.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System if you are interested in more information.

Re:Posting private info to a public website

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is peer pressure: Join FB! Join FB! Join FB! And once you do, if you're ever at a weak point in life, you may post something you'll regret later, which can and does happen in any communication medium, not just pseudo-private or public websites. That's why people need to THINK and TEST new technologies before carelessly implementing them. Of course I go way back in my complaint to the first instant message I received around 1990. Didn't even know the computer was connected (or could be) because I was - and still am - an introvert programmer; that means my brain functions without perpetual external stimulus from other humans!

Like all new toys, computer connectivity spread like wildfire amongst the hedonists and many who did not have the discretion of introverts jumped on the development bandwagon to make careless systems and services. Here we are now, discussing something that could have been avoided or mitigated with due respect to insightful people years ago!! Duh?

If this society didn't fight and wasn't fighting a covert war against introverts, we probably wouldn't be writing about these issues now!

Re:Posting private info to a public website

[Anonymous Coward]

If you post a pic of of a penis, facebook will wipe your account faster than you can say "entauro adun". I've seen it happen. Truly and utterly deleted.

Too Late

[Graff]

Yeah, sorry Facebook, you are too late. I'm out.

Maybe my single voice means nothing but I'm willing to bet there's a lot more people who are fed up with not only Facebook's privacy activities but also their inane games, spam from other users, advertisements from all sorts of snake oil salesmen, and "friends" who you've barely, if ever, had contact with.

I'll stick to other ways to keep in contact with the people I really care about. The rest of them can stick their social media somewhere unpleasant.

Re:Too Late

[__aajfby9338]

You're not the only one who has opted out of Facebook. About a week ago, I deleted all of my pictures, all of my old posts (that took a lot of clicking), all of my group affiliations, and almost all of my personal information. I'll maintain the account just to let people I've lost touch with find me. The only things I post there now are links to stories about what's wrong with Facebook, and its potential replacements. I won't comment on or click "like" on anybody else's postings. I've changed my bio information to state that I do not approve of Facebook's privacy policy changes and that I'm only maintaining my account to allow old friends to make initial contact with me.

The recent news about diaspora interests me, and I'll be keeping my eye on that project. I'm looking forward to seeing what they come out with at the end of summer. I enjoyed using Facebook until their privacy policy changes led me to stop, and I hope to see future social media options that lack Facebook's undesirable features and policies.

Re:Too Late

[dominion]

The Diaspora* guys certainly have a lot of heart, and now they've got some serious expectations to contend with, but they're really not unique, and there are a lot of projects that are way ahead of them. The idea that they can catch up in a "3-month sprint" makes me skeptical.

I've been working, off and on, on a project called Appleseed, an open source, distributed social networking software that is pretty far along, and already works as a proof-of-concept. I started in 2004, and it's been a big undertaking. There's also projects like OneSocialWeb, and Elgg that they'll be competing with, not to mention all the other smaller projects that may not be out of pre-alpha, but still have more code completed and problems solved than they do at this point.

I wish them the best of luck, and I don't want to begrudge them their success, but having been through what I've done already, I don't envy the task ahead of them.

Until then, I think it's best that people support projects with some code under their belt. If not that, at the very least, a solid plan for what they're trying to build and how.

http://www.drumbeat.org/project/appleseed-social-networking

Re:Too Late

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you expect old friends to make initial contact with you with no personal information whatsoever and no pictures to verify?

Re:Too Late

[Anonymous Coward]

And you think that information is gone? Sure, it's no longer visible to other users, but in practicality, it's just a check box in a database. I'm so happy for not being a facebook fan myself.

Re:Too Late

[Graff]

And you think that information is gone? Sure, it's no longer visible to other users, but in practicality, it's just a check box in a database.

That's why what you do is start filling in bad information over the course of a few months, then they have multiple sets of information and the real information is mixed in with the false information. This means that none of the information is useful or reliable since it is conflicting and misleading. If someone tries to use it all they will get is a mess.

Re:Too Late

[thisisntme]

There's also projects like OneSocialWeb, and Elgg that they'll be competing with, not to mention all the other smaller projects that may not be out of pre-alpha, but still have more code completed and problems solved than they do at this point.

Why do all these projects have to be in competition? If they could agree on some common protocols for interaction, then they could join forces and together be much stronger.

it is easy to delete your account

[meatron]

according to this blog all you have to do is put a dick as your profile picture, and they do the work for you... no more photos tagged, everything gone. pretty simple.

Re:it is easy to delete your account

[Itninja]

"Hey! Where my Facebooks site at? I can't find it and I searched all the Google on the Interweb!?" - Dick Cheney

Re:it is easy to delete your account

[Anonymous Coward]

You were probably looking down the wrong tubes, Dick.

Re:it is easy to delete your account

[antdude]

Or use fake datas. I got kicked for that. However, how do we know that they really deleted our datas? They probably still have the accounts, but not to the public and account owner.

Re:it is easy to delete your account

[Sot32]

according to this blog all you have to do is put a dick as your profile picture, and they do the work for you... no more photos tagged, everything gone. pretty simple.

That would be *such* an awesome farewell to all of my ex-girlfriends too...

Re:it is easy to delete your account

[sakdoctor]

Beating your profile at yahtzee will also destroy it.

Re:it is easy to delete your account

[Anonymous Coward]

I like that idea. Once I've convinced my friends to leave Facebook (which could take years...), I'll do just that. It'll be interesting to see how long it takes my account to vanish...

Meanwhile, I've deleted almost all of my personal information, unauthorized almost every app, and unliked a bunch of pages...

Re:it is easy to delete your account

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the security surrounding Facebook, I'm waiting for the day that ALL profile pictures are 'updated' in this way. Starting with the accounts of people most likely to go volcanic at account deletion.

Re:it is easy to delete your account

[weicco]

Does the size matter?

Re:it is easy to delete your account

[Anonymous Coward]

It'd be interesting to tag yourself or have people tag you in a lot of unrelated photos prior to getting yourself deleted like that.

Re:it is easy to delete your account

[Anonymous Coward]

The cynic in me suspects this is a scam to trick people who want to get deleted from Facebook into posting pictures of dicks.

Second in the series, what's next?

[Boss Sauce]

First came MySpace, and when people realized Facebook suited them better, they saw MySpace as the pile of crap software that it really was. Now Facebook is falling victim to its own success, and people are seeing its limits and pitfalls, looking for the next thing as Facebook tries to monetize their personal information. What will it be? Probably not something called "diaspora*" in spite of its founders' apparent good intentions: despite the upbeat definition they picked, most people associate diaspora with slavery, oppression, and other painful historical memories. Seriously: what's next?

Re:Second in the series, what's next?

[Arthur Grumbine]

...most people associate diaspora with slavery, oppression, and other painful historical memories...

You have a very high opinion of most people's vocabulary.

Re:Second in the series, what's next?

[ethicalcannibal]

I was just over at the consumerist article about Diaspora. A significant proportion of the commenters thought the name was a) made up, b) some weird open source acronym, or c) hard to pronounce. I don't think they are associating the word diaspora with anything.

Re:Second in the series, what's next?

[EdIII]

...most people associate diaspora with slavery, oppression, and other painful historical memories...

You have a very high opinion of most people's vocabulary.

I thought I knew what diaspora was before reading this post, and that is was something I did in the bathroom. Most people probably think they know what it means too.

Re:Second in the series, what's next?

[nacturation]

That's why I created my new social networking site "Holocaust".

Pseudo-on-topic-rant: what's with the asterisk in "diaspora*"? Every time I read an article about it I want to scroll to the bottom of the page to see what the footnote says.

Re:Second in the series, what's next?

[DNS-and-BIND]

One of the things that (used to) make America a wonderful nation for immigrants was the loss of historical memory. After a generation or two, the old country is forgotten along with all of its hateful baggage. I was listening to a delightful Irish CD the other day, and it was great music until I started reading the liner notes. He was singing about things that happened 200 years ago as if they had happened yesterday, and it was good and correct for Irish to still be angry.

Re:Second in the series, what's next?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a very high opinion of most people's vocabulary.

Agreed. I for one thought they made it up. Now I have to go look up diaspora...

Re:Second in the series, what's next?

[Swampash]

My turn for a baseless assertion: most people don't associate diaspora with slavery, oppression, and other painful historical memories!

Re:Second in the series, what's next?

[dominion]

http://www.drumbeat.org/project/appleseed-social-networking

(NOTE: This project is already significantly along, and works as a proof-of-concept. What is needed is a lot of polish and testing.)

The Appleseed Project is an effort to create open source Social Networking software that is based on a distributed model. For instance, a profile on one Appleseed website could "friend" a profile on another Appleseed website, and the two profiles could interact with each other.

Apart from being distributed, Appleseed will also have a strong focus on privacy and security, as well as a commitment to seeing the user as an online citizen, as opposed to a consumer to be targetted. This is in stark contrast to current social networking websites, who rely heavily on ad placement and data mining of their users.

The first goal is to create a codebase for basic interaction, such as creating profiles, creating and participating in message groups, journals and comments, etc.

Eventually, Appleseed will encompass many different aspects, from mail to messaging to journals/blogs to photo uploads and management. A module architecture is also in the works for even greater extensibility.

Development currently uses Object Oriented PHP4, MySQL (InnoDB), XHTML, Javascript, and CSS2. Mozilla/Firefox will be the target platform.

Re:Second in the series, what's next?

[drinkypoo]

Development currently uses Object Oriented PHP4, MySQL (InnoDB), XHTML, Javascript, and CSS2. Mozilla/Firefox will be the target platform.

If I could integrate my drupal site into your network, I'd probably load a module to do so. Is it going to be more complicated than that?

Re:Second in the series, what's next?

[Cro Magnon]

Now that you mention it, that IS a good name for a replacement to Facebook.

Who has the issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

All-hand staff meeting leaks out on /.? Sounds like to me that they have some privacy issues themselves, maybe created by their own product?

Re:Who has the issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, but I think even a higher dose of their own medicine would be in order.

I've removed everything from my profile

[rAiNsT0rm]

I have never liked or respected Zuckerberg, he is delusional and dangerous. Greed + ego never ends well and add youth to that and you have a complete nightmare. Sadly I have close friends and family spread out over the globe and Facebook is one of the best ways for us to stay in touch right now. Hopefully that changes soon, but in the meantime I have removed everything from my profile and have suggested others do the same.

Re:I've removed everything from my profile

[Azureflare]

Same. If anyone wants to get that info they can call me.

Honestly, at this point I trust Google Chat more than Facebook for my private info.

Re:I've removed everything from my profile

[blair1q]

Facebook is actually kind of suck for "staying in touch". It's more of an automated interleaver of blogs, with public chatrooms attached to each post.

IM is quite a bit better for personal dealings. Email can make up for any time you're not both online.

Re:I've removed everything from my profile

[MagikSlinger]

It is interesting you bring up creating a "shell" account. It's what I've basically done. The only things on Facebook are the things I don't mind people knowing about me or is available elsewhere. I use it then just to keep in contact with friends who don't feel so invaded. Sort of like a more private Twitter. :-)

Re:I've removed everything from my profile

[Wyatt Earp]

I don't agree.

Example - I was in Israel 16 years ago, made some friends and when I came back to the States I lost track of them.

Facebook - I just happen on doing a search for one of the places I lived there, found a community of other ex pats who'd been there over the decades and found a couple drinking bodies from 16 years ago, caught up with them.

I couldn't have done that with email or IM.

Re:I've removed everything from my profile

[Bob_Who]

I have never liked or respected Zuckerberg, he is delusional and dangerous......but in the meantime I have removed everything from my profile and have suggested others do the same.

Me too. Zuck is a dick. It should be Zuckerberg / Fucker-nerd - Dick Book.or just Dickless.

Re:I've removed everything from my profile

[rAiNsT0rm]

Even more, if they are friends or family, *they know* which is why they are close friends and family.

Re:I've removed everything from my profile

[nacturation]

Of course, you're talking about "getting in touch". The GP said it's kind of suck for "staying in touch". I think you're both right unless your "staying in touch" consists of a lot of public communications between groups of friends.

Re:I've removed everything from my profile

[Lumpy]

. Greed + ego never ends well and add youth to that and you have a complete nightmare.

What? Look at Bill Gates. He turned out OK.

Re:I've removed everything from my profile

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you remove your network of friends? because that is one of the most valuable pieces of personal information on there.

That's OK - FB Doesn't want you either.

[rueger]

The goal of FB is to sell eyeballs to advertisers. Like Google they figured out that packaging users into nice groups makes them worth more money.

What they're doing now is eliminating all of the people that likely aren't making them revenue - the losers, the people with no profile info, the grouches that aren't in the advertiser's target group.

In other words, every time some slashdotter or blogger drops out of Facebook they're actually helping FB to be MORE successful!

Re:That's OK - FB Doesn't want you either.

[Todd Knarr]

Not really. Users are product, but unlike most industries this "product" has legs and can walk off on it's own. The more product Facebook has, the more valuable it is to it's customers. The less product, the less valuable. Now, the major reason people use Facebook is that the other people they know also use Facebook. The larger a percentage of the people they know that use something other than Facebook, the less incentive there is for them to use Facebook too. This is one thing Google gets: no matter how profitable something may seem in the short term, if it scares off or runs off your product it's not a good idea in the long term.

And it isn't just this one thing. Facebook's gotten some press lately over employers looking over people's profiles. The new forced networks based on things like employer don't help people with jobs feel comfortable, which makes them more likely to drop off Facebook. Which makes everyone they know just a little more likely to drop off too.

The whole thing isn't linear. Reach a critical mass and your product base grows exponentially. Drop below that critical mass, and your product base implodes exponentially too. I think Facebook's starting to worry that if they don't do something they may drop below critical mass.

Re:That's OK - FB Doesn't want you either.

[Anonymous Coward]

This already has happened. MySpace's base is eroding, and we already have seen Friendster and Orkut essentially crater. I'm sure sooner or later, someone is going to come out with a social networking service that can one-up Facebook. Then if it can get people to move there, FB will get left in the dust as last year's social networking, similar to how Geocities is remembered.

FB needs to start valuing the privacy of its users. If not, there are people out there who will happily capitalize on this mistake and offer everything FB does, but better and easier to use privacy settings.

Re:That's OK - FB Doesn't want you either.

[Todd Knarr]

I think it'll take more than an alternative popping up. There's plenty of alternatives to LiveJournal, for instance, but that hasn't significantly hurt LJ's position. I think what it'll take is a number of closely-spaced nasty events where regular people got seriously hurt (fired from work, say) over things they thought they'd secured on Facebook but that were actually exposed through Facebook's new networks. When that happens you'll see a critical mass abandon Facebook, but I doubt before that.

Re:That's OK - FB Doesn't want you either.

[Anonymous Coward]

eliminating all of the people that likely aren't making them revenue - the losers, the people with no profile info, the grouches that aren't in the advertiser's target group.

Grim prophetic words of the future (with echoes of the past) history. This thread is already ripe for Godwin at its start.

I know what you should do.

[blair1q]

Someone should take a picture of the meeting and post it on the web.

Who's attending the meeting...

[One Louder]

... and what are their names and addresses?

Re:Who's attending the meeting...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure there's an app for that.

Unlikely

[Opportunist]

I see it more like a meeting to tell everyone "if you don't shut up and smile to it, you're fired". And it's not sent as a memo because it could be forwarded.

A side note, possibly relevant...

[seebs]

Facebook and Blizzard recently announced a cooperative effort.

In prior days, Blizzard had publicized plans to include cross-game chat and the ability to mark people as friends (rather than individual characters), so you could see when your friends were on. Much was made about the importance of the privacy features that would make this secure, safe, and usable.

Then they announced that:

1. It would be done in conjunction with Facebook.
2. The only way to invite someone would be to send an invitation to the email address which is used as that person's login name for the battle.net service. (Blizzard has in the past told people to use a special email address just for that, and not to share it with anyone.)
3. Your real name, as on your billing info, will be shown to all your friends.
4. Also, your real name, as on your billing info, will be shown to all your friends-of-friends.

The service is "optional", but the only option available is to not use it at all -- even though these are features which would be EXTREMELY desireable to many users, if they didn't come with the privacy problems. Furthermore, a recent glitch during the Starcraft 2 beta allowed ANY user to see ANY user's full name -- whether or not they were friends.

So I'm pretty sure Facebook is doing the wrong thing thus far, and if they don't change that, I suspect they will start losing popularity faster than they're gaining it. I'm certainly starting to think seriously about deleting my account there over this crap.

Re:A side note, possibly relevant...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I hope that's been trashed.

Re:A side note, possibly relevant...

[Anonymous Coward]

QQ much? blizzard has non real id friends.

Re:A side note, possibly relevant...

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation needed?

Not doubting, I just want to read it for myself :)

Re:A side note, possibly relevant...

[seebs]

Yes, but it doesn't have any non-RealID way to do cross-game chat, cross-server chat, or to automatically pick up all of someone's alts when you friend them.

And since all of those are really awesome features that people would love to use with their online friends, it sorta sucks that the only way you're allowed to access them is by sending people your login name and showing them (plus all of their friends) your real name.

subject of meeting?

[sparrowhead]

Well, they are having a meeting on the topic privacy. There's no word, however whether they want to improve privacy for their customers or exploit it furthermore

The answer is simple.

[Pherlin]

They're going to start collecting blood samples of all users, and are starting with employees.

The thing with Facebook is this ... well, *these*

[2muchcoffeeman]

Last year, which seems like the last time this bubbled up, Facebook took input from its members and eventually came up with a statement of Facebook Principles, which its members voted in favor of adopting by about a 3:1 margin. So what happened to that?

Well, as Kurt Opsahl of the Electronic Frontier Foundation pointed out today, Facebook's management didn't even pay lip service to those principles when it came up with the latest evolution of its privacy policy and things like Instant Personalization.

I haven't decided if this is a separate reason to dislike Facebook or part of the same reason for disliking Facebook. One thing I have decided: I'm glad I blew up my Facebook account.

This is the beginning of the end

[moore.dustin]

The topic of discussion at my networking group this morning was Facebook and we were not talking about how to make money with it. People were wondering about issues they had not known to even worry about until the latest big stink about privacy issues. Over the last year or two, only Fan pages and the like were discussed as they looked to leverage the network to make money. After failing to see any value in using Facebook for their business, most ignored the topic for several months until just recently. Now this morning it is brought up and people are going home to think about deleting their account, not setting up a page for their business.

Worse yet

[melted]

I heard from a friend of mine who works there that anyone at Facebook has full access to all data they have. They can check out your private messages, photos, chats, etc. In other words, do things for which you'd be fired immediately if you were at Google or Microsoft.

Re:Worse yet

[nacturation]

I heard from a friend of mine who works there that anyone at Facebook has full access to all data they have. They can check out your private messages, photos, chats, etc. In other words, do things for which you'd be fired immediately if you were at Google or Microsoft.

And many others read from a purported Facebook employee that it's not quite so "open" as you suggest.

Re:Worse yet

[melted]

Apparently you didn't read the whole article. There's no longer a "master password" with which you can log in as any user, but as an engineer you can still see and modify anything you want.

And, if you read further, the reason why there's no master password is because when you access the site from inside Facebook corpnet you can login _without any password at all_.

Get over it. Just don't use Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the reason I have never had a Facebook account to start with. You sign up for these things they get enough accounts and users that are hooked and then they change the rules. Look at waht the credit card groups have done with intrest rates.

Click here to delete your facebook account

[Animats]

Click here to delete your Facebook account. This is the less-publicized "real deletion" link, not just the "deactivate" link. However, if you log into your Facebook account for 14 days after clicking that link, your Facebook account will be re-activated.

Diaspora*

[freeze128]

What's with the asterisk at the end of diaspora? Is it supposed to be something clever like L8R, which would make is Diasporasterisk? Because if it is, I don't think that name will catch on. It's just too hard to say in casual conversation....

"Hey, I got in touch with an old friend on Diasporasterisk." - Nope, too hard to say.

Diaspora has ticked the guys up there..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure it's just some publicity to stop the diaspora.. but for heaven's sake i hope it begins soon.. i'll be joining fast and surely, and stop screwing around facebook... of course, i wouldn't delete my account, just stop using it to communicate (there's NO point in deleting a facebook account :S )...
and of course, as soon as the diaspora fails (IF, and i hope not) they'll just stop pretending to be doing anything... it's all culture dynamics, they just need to withhold diaspora until it becomes old news, then it's safe..

Diaspora

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, four geeky college students really scared the crap out of Facebook this week.

There must be some way to hide your public profile

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do I find the option that hides your likes, your profile photo, and all that gear?

This guy appears to have found it hidden in the settings somewhere:
http://www.facebook.com/markzuckerberg

Re:...speaking of naked greed

[Bob_Who]

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that Facebook needs to hand over private information -- other than naked greed.

Which may be why I misread the headline:

  All Hands Meet On Privates...
and now its morphing into:
(sit on my) facebook
Personal data, naked greed, and hands on privates - sounds like a www.inning.com.bo

Re:Enough facebook posts!

[herojig]

I agree, but there is a lack of any real news most days and these spaces must be filled to appease the /. masses. The Diaspora* /facebook story is a great example. NYT regional news did that piece to promote some homeboys working on an after-school project and then it's picked up here and debated ad nauseum, as if it's a real story of international importance. But as they say, that's /.:)

Privacy Oversight

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, Obama keeps privacy oversight board on ice

Just one point ...

[daveime]

One the one hand ...

The couple of hundred people who regularly complain on Slashdot, Digg, Reddit, Twitter etc about the "evil" Facebook no-privacy policy, yet are too dumb to delete their accounts.

On the other hand ...

N million other Facebook users who really don't give a fuck, and just want to comment on their friends latest Boyfriend / Girlfriend / Coffee Shop visit.

"Highly contentious" is hardly the right description.

Re:Just one point ...

[mgbastard]

Well fuck us for giving a damn and materially supporting orgs like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).

Re:Just one point ...

[daveime]

Your personal choices and affiliations are your business ... I was merely trying to make the point that the 0.01% of Facebook users who DO care about privacy does NOT make the issue "highly contentious". Perhaps a "vocal minority" would have been a better description.

What don't you understand about impunity?

[NicknamesAreStupid]

This company has worked hard in a very competitive business and eared the privilege of collecting millions of people's personal information in order to make money any way that is legal. This meeting is an example of how they know, just like bartenders and drug dealers, not to sample the merchandise. Nobody is being coerced into revealing their personal lives to the world. I know that Latin is a dead language, but caveat emptor still applies even it the price is free. Get a grip!

All-Hands Meeting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dosn't sound very private to me...

captcha = beatify

But once the genie is out the bottle

[msgmonkey]

One thing I find disturbing is that even when/if Facebook backs down, it has already given away your information. For example when they decided to put what you're a "fan" of in your public profile that any web-crawler can see. Even if they backed down, I'm sure that information is now stored in a number of databases outside of Facebook and you don't have to be completely paranoid to think maybe Facebook has a hand in this.

F*

[Anonymous Coward]

I still remember the CEO or something of Facebook saying that the Age of Privacy is over. Thanks to Facebook. Well, what a turn now, huh? Fuckers.

Diaspora*'s Max Salzberg? Really??

[Conanymous Award]

ROFL. This is like a battle between the Good Twin and the Evil Twin, Dark Side vs. Light Side and so on...

(For the Germanly challenged: 'Salzberg' literally means 'salt mountain', while 'Zuckerberg' is 'sugar mountain'!)

I think I know the "internal" name for the meeting

[naplam33]

They call it "how to keep on pissing on their privacy and get away with it"

What is this facebook thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this facebook thing?

Everyone talks about it like it isn't a publishing system. If you put anything private on the internet, it gets out. That includes things you don't consider important today, but those little details become important when grouped together. Your friend connections are probably most important out of all the data.

Google is much worse with your privacy. They just don't talk about it.

BTW, I don't have facebook, twitter, myspace .... whatever social engineering site accounts. I have a blog, journal, website that I run on my servers. I understand that my site content is stolen by others, archived by others and that I can't get any of it back. I had a few links into a private photo gallery. Eventually, google and yahoo found them. Next thing I saw 9000 of my personal photos in google images. I asked google to remove them via an interface and relocated all imgs about 18 months ago. Google isn't evil for finding them. They are just thorough.

Re:What is this facebook thing?

[onemorechip]

"publishing system" is a darn good description. I don't put anything there that I wouldn't feel comfortable with strangers finding out about me. Just as when you are in a public place you wouldn't intentionally reveal such information about yourself. I say to myself, "Facebook is a public place". That fact doesn't keep me from going there: I'm not an agoraphobe. It just governs what I do when I'm there.

delayed & inadequate change of policy emminent

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa, a corporate All Hands Meeting, they are really pulling out the big guns now!
If they go the next step and make it "mandatory" then you'll know it has gone to DEFCON 5. :o)

I don't know, do Septics use facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious myself

Re:Facebook as an address book not communication

[newviewmedia.com]

You could always just delete all your photos, bio info, etc and essentially turn Facebook into an address book to store old contact information. Conduct messaging through other channels such as email, text, twitter, flickr, etc... nothing lost.

There will be a new social network coming online that will kick Facebook to the dust bin, just as Geocities and Myspace had done to them before. Think mobile + geo + social + gaming elements...

Re:There must be some way to hide your public prof

[Siridar]

Ahh, interesting. The big cheese doesn't share his personal profile - he shares a *page* with his info on it.

Re:The thing with Facebook is this ... well, *thes

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad I blew up my Facebook account.

I'm glad I've never become sheep to have one.

I can see it now...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ok people, the challenge is this: How can be screw over our user-base by selling their information without upsetting them."

Facebook on last leg with me...

[hammer_gaidin]

After the past few revisions of the Facebook design, and privacy policy, FB is on its last leg with me. I used to be a large supporter of the site because it was very good at keeping my information in check. Combine that with some userscripts and the site was a great addition to my social/professional life. But if the site continues to evolve the way it has been going I will be right with everyone that is calling for account deletions. I look forward to a true open source alternative. I just hope when some strong contenders come down the pipes, the facebook community will realize the need for a change. Cheers Hammer_Gaidin

Diaspora will go nowhere

[swordgeek]

I like the idea, but it's a geek idea - not an average user idea.

As an example of what I mean, I went to the diaspora website as an average user, expecting an alternative to facebook. Instead of seeing "register here and create your profile", I saw several paragraphs explaining the distributed paradigm, how your local profile for different web-applications is stored elsewhere (on your computer or in 'the cloud'), and so forth.

Guess what? People don't want to read. People don't want to have to figure out a new paradigm that involves personal involvement. What people want is facebook, but with a better interface and security policy. (and with Zuckerberg nowhere to be seen)

How many people use citizendium over wikipedia? How many people muck with bittorrent or even grooveshark, vs. buying songs on iTunes? How many auction sites have usurped eBay, after they changed their pricing model, paypal affiliation, etc.? People just don't switch to something better-but-different, unless it's (a) familiar looking, and/or (b) totally ground-breakingly new *for them* (i.e. the background and model don't matter).

Re:Diaspora will go nowhere

[onemorechip]

Er, that information is for promotional purposes since diaspora* isn't up yet. When it's up we will see. If the design makes it easy to use -- and there's no reason it couldn't be at least as easy as Facebook -- then it could catch on. Especially if it lives up to its promise of aggregating existing social network feeds, because people won't want to abandon those altogether.

Buying?

[phorm]

If I stop by a motorcycle shop to buy some oil and they sold that information to other distributors

And when did you "buy" access to facebook? Essentially, it's paid for using advertising and or scraping your details for advertising purposes. I wholly agree that there should be limitations, but comparing it to buying a physical product is somewhat different. Then again, plenty of stores have "loyalty cards", etc which will similarly track your purposes and share details for advertising purposes, so the only unique thing about facebook is the number of users and the breadth of information they've decided to share.

Who Faces the Facebook?

[neo]

My brother recently was convicted of bank robbery. He's currently in prison serving his sentence. His life is a sad story, but that's not why I'm posting this.

The reason I'm posting this is because he has access to Facebook.

So ask yourself, "Why would the federal prison system allow inmates to us a social networking system?"

The paranoid answers are more terrifying than I care to entertain, but the most obvious answer would be that they don't fear Facebook. That implies that they can monitor it... that the federal government has access to the information being stored in Facebook and more importantly wants inmates to show their connections and to possibly implicate others through the system.

What government in the world wouldn't want access to the information that Facebook has? Social networks at your fingertips? Messages that can be filtered for problematic content?

Anyone who seriously entertains the idea that Facebook has not bowed down before the government information community is deluding themselves.

Expect Facebook to continue to make headlines with possible privacy issues with advertisers while privately giving its information away to the government.

Dropped and never going back

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking bastards.

What did the world do before social networking?

[Anonymous Coward]

How did we exist before social networking? We're so interested in being in touch with everyone all the time. Goes to show, the covert war against the introvert is succeeding - or maybe it has already very nearly finished in victory [against introverts]. Maybe if people would have listened to the insightful introverts long ago, these technology problems would have been mitigated now. Definitely.

pan pan pan

[Mana Mana]

>>>TV advertising remains the most lucrative form of advertising. It does not require detailed information about all its viewers. They know demographics, and they occasionally survey samples to validate that, but no personal information is needed. And this system works.
>>>

Hate to break the news to you, but that sentiment is simply untrue.

Television has been bleeding ad revenue, en masse, to Google search and others for years. Newspapers, OTA-TV, CTV all hate the new medium for stealing their lunch.

Nielsen/Arbitron?, the TV ratings company has or will supplant their statistical sampling extrapolation ratings estimates. Why? Advertisers find the numbers fuzzy, subjective, reliant on voluntary/truthful participants (bad). Online search. Google ad* services gives them (advertisers/google customers) a precision that pale Nielsen's numbers. If Google numbers are facts, Nielsen's are guesses. Advertisers want facts whenever possible.

In fact, radio audience ratings are shallow as well. To wit, recent tests showed that listeners under-/mis- report their music, i.e., their station choices non trivially, something like 20, 30% points. Classical station listeners reported, say, a 90%+ classic station patronage, but electronic listening devices installed in their vehicles showed that a large proportion of these same listeners in fact had a ~50-60% classical to 30-40% rock music patronage. Stations, and in fact the big networks were blown away by these unexpected numbers as they in most cases impacted their ad rates. How come? Turns out as well that a lot of other misconceptions appeared. LIke? Rock suffered to norteno music, or salsa, or other ethnic music stations. Changing demographics, gentlemen.

So you are wrong, I am not sorry to tell you. Terrestrial Radio is a wasteland, has been for me my entire life. It didn't have punk, hard core, metal, speed metal, fusion/progressive jazz, Hindu, south asian, tropicalismo, HKPop, JPop, Kpop, Trance, Techno, or any other shit that wasn't the same. I have listened, to a college radio station (I'm guessing) play a repetitive drone of a Japanese phrase (no, not phillip glass)- unanmi, unami, unami - for fifteen minutes and find relief from hysterical DJs about the weather and all taking another call. My gf stares at me in disbelief and wonders how I can joyfully tolerate such welcome discoveries. My refrain, a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g different is good. Things are so fucked up that although I enjoy stumbling upon raga, tabla I have to fight the fucking ghosts of Lennon, Harrison's BS from my mind. Screw you clear channel, westwood one.

IIIIIIIOOOOOOO

[Mana Mana]

Wao! Simplicity of thought, action.

I don't know exactly why but as that author whined about how he can't do without facebook for invites and what shizzle, he's so dang inconvenienced by his dependence and obeisance, I thought: The more you tighten your grip, the more they will slip through your fingers.

Model making

[cavebison]

Funny how different these online revenue models are. Meetup.com charges people who run small communities of interest. Seems to work for them, it's not complicated, though it limits who decides to use the platform. Facebook is different things to different people, so I don't see why they can't charge something for group/event services, and keep individual profile stuff free. You pay for the value-adds. A very old model that works for many. For some reason everything about FB is free, even group tools, which IMO gives them unnecessary headaches.

Problem is, their investors came on expecting a specific scenario. Incredible market penetration leading to astronomical advertising and data leverage opportunities. Even if Zuck wasn't into it, he *has* to be as aggressive in this way as possible, otherwise lose the confidence of investors. It's hard convincing an investor not to chase revenue model X because "it might turn people off". They'd be like, "what did I give you all this money for?"

But who knows, maybe they're starting to get the message - which might prove difficult for FB. They don't want investors realising that maybe they *can't* milk this thing the way they wanted to. Depending on their P/L (no-one seems exactly sure what their profit is) that realisation could mean trouble. But investors don't seem to be looking for an exit yet - or they're counting on an IPO before thinking about it.

If FB, being this unstable child, does IPO then people better watch their stock price like a hawk.