Slashdot Mirror
Google Starts Indexing Facebook Comments
First time accepted submitter SharkLaser writes "Users of Facebook Connect have previously enjoyed extra privacy as it was harder for Google to index comments made on the platform. Google, which also runs the competing service Google+, has now started indexing Facebook's public comments as well as comments made on platforms Disqus and Intense Debate, which all used programming that was hard for Google to read. Public comments and links made on those platforms will now be directly visible and searchable in Google."
Hey guys, where else can we find more drivel to dilute our search results?
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Forget TFA, I stopped reading the summary after "Users of Facebook Connect have previously enjoyed extra privacy..."
The Slaves of Corporate Big Brother have also enjoyed extra silent company.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The fact that it's only "public comments" killed that emotion.
I hate it when the information I post on a publicly readable service isn't private.
Posting a comment publicly means you have no problem with who sees it or how it's used. "Available to all" is the definition of "public". This is like shouting on a street corner and getting mad at someone listening!
If you're posting publically about things that future employers might feel would make you unsuitable for a position in their company, then you deserve anything you get.
Google starts to index an additional source of publicly available content.
or in other words,
nothing at all has happened.
This should be tagged !story.
This is more like having a discussion in a coffee shop and having 1000 random people write it down everything you said.
Historically, Facebook hasn't had any problem deciding that was once private is now public. Lots of people have posted stuff that was private, but is now public.
On top of that, Facebook hasn't exactly tried very hard to make their privacy settings understandable or accessible. I'm sure lots of normal people (ie those not reading Slashdot) would be surprised just how public their lives are.
Maybe it's more like having a casual conversation with a friend at a bar which is heard by someone miles away and years in the future.
Yes. Like religious and political leanings, your position on right to work, and worker's rights - anyone who reveals things an employer might not agree with deserves to get fired and never ever work again.
This is more like having a discussion in a coffee shop and having 1000 random people write it down everything you said.
This failed analogy underscores that people do not understand privacy and demonstrates why Facebook thrives.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
Does Facebook have any recourse if Google explicitly ignores the robots.txt for their site as well as the site scraping TOS, http://www.facebook.com/apps/site_scraping_tos_terms.php?
Yes. Facebook suspended Google's account.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
Here's what's funny. Everyone said, "Facebook will crush Google+ by copying its public posting ability!"
Yet, Google was sitting there the whole time going, "Please copy us! Please! Please! Please!"
I8-D
1.) Google indexes Facebook comments 2.) Facebook comments become #1 target for spammers worldwide 3.) Facebook becomes a diluted, email-esque spam haven.... 4.) ...driving all users to Google+, since they - conspicuously - don't index their comments.
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h
The "programming" mentioned in the Telegraph is that these comment service providers base their systems on JavaScript, which didn't used to be executed by Googlebot for comments.
Now it will.
People have privacy fears because these commenting systems use one login for the entire Web vs. having one for /., one for nytimes.com, one for example.com. Used to be you could be nutty on Slashdot, serious on nytimes.com, etc., without anybody being the wiser. The more websites move to Facebook comments, the more problems of this sort. Combine that with "real name" policies, and it's a privacy mess. More about it here
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Yeah how dare anyone do anything or have views on issues contrary to what the corporate overlords approves of. That's downright treasonous and more than worthy of you getting a lifetime blacklist.
Or, you know, these employers could just get their noses out of people's affairs that have nothing to do with their job?
Well yeah, if you record that conversation, and knowingly sprinkling the tapes all across the world for, *literally* anyone to access, forever.
You don't have to post *publicly*...if you do post *publicly* then know that what you post is *public*.
Seriously man?
From the article:
"The update means links featured in comments will also enhance websites' standing.
Social is bad for search, and search is bad for social. Every attempt by a major search engine to use social signals has been heavily spammed. Social spamming is cheaper and easier than creating link farms - the social sites host the spam for free.
Google Places was hit hard starting in October 2010, when Places results were mixed in with web search results. It happened fast - within two months, Google Places was choked with spam, with both phony locations and phony reviews. This was so bad that the mainstream press picked up on it, and Google had to deemphasize "places" results. You don't hear Google talking about "local" as much as they did a year ago.
Citysearch and Yelp are choked with spam reviews. Google +"1"s are for sale for about $0.15 to $0.25 each. Facebook fans cost about $0-05 each. Google's "real names" policy was an attempt to crack down on phony accounts, but it didn't work. You can buy phone and email verified Google accounts in bulk. There are rogue phone services that help with the fake phone numbers.
Using social signals for search has reduced search quality and jammed social sites with junk that's only read by search spiders. Facebook (which has to allow Google to do this) just set themselves up for an influx of junk. And Google just reduced their search quality again.
There are useful social signals for search, but they come from systems that see transactions and actually know who bought something, like Amazon, eBay, and Visa International. Even those can be spammed; you can buy an old eBay account, change the name, and inherit the old reputation.
If you friend Googlebot on Facebook then your private to friends posts will be indexed by Google.
If you don't friend Googlebot on Facebook then your private to friends posts stay private to your friends.
How this concept eluded you we will never know.
If you're posting publically about things that future employers might feel would make you unsuitable for a position in their company, then you deserve anything you get.
Problem is, what is to determine the tastes of future employers for public speech. Say, for example, I post negative things about a proprietary technology that then becomes ubiquitous (ie, skype, twitter, twilio, etc). What about political speech?
Sure you can post anonymously or pseudonymously, but speech/text can easily be analyzed for patterns to match against a known good source.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting