PDA

View Full Version : Some Quitting Facebook as Privacy Concerns Escalate



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12

Really
05-30-2010, 08:33 PM
Some of what's in the Time article came before Zuckerberg/FB decided to backtrack somewhat on the privacy issues earlier this week. By no means does this week's announcement represent a complete overhaul, but it does give users the opportunity to adjust their privacy settings a little more easily.

As for being visionary, I'm not sure that Zuckerberg is exactly that, but his product has, especially since being opened past colleges and university, changed much in the way people and businesses communicate. But it's not just FB; Twitter certainly has helped, as have apps like Foursquare and LinkedIn. Each of these social media apps allows people to be as open or closed as they would like -- more or less. I see this period as one of 'growing pains' for all social media -- trying to find out just what the limits are in terms of how much 'openness' people are willing tolerate in return for 'free' services.

It's important to recognize that there's nothing really inherently :EVILLE: about social media, but people do have to be smart about the way they use it. I love the fact that I can keep in touch with some people I haven't seen in years, or that I was able to find a half brother just a few years ago, and actually meet him 1 1/2 years ago. It's also given me a great way to open up discussions with my junior high kids about their 'digital footprints' and what kind of legacy they want to leave online (the use of social media in school is a whole other kettle of fish). Certainly many people have learned the hard way that just because you can post something, doesn't mean you should. In some ways though, those of us who have been posting on message boards since the early/mid-90's have already been aware of those types of issues.

The most important thing to remember about any interactions online is that once you've posted it, it's pretty much impossible to take it back. And it *is* up to the user (or their parents) to make sure they understand the risks and responsibilities of using social media. It *is* a whole new world out there...

hydro
05-30-2010, 09:22 PM
Yes, FB as it is in its present format and in its difference from other networking sites IS an original idea. Just like the iPhone in its present form and its differences from other smartphones is an original idea.

I just don't understand your argument (if you even have one).

First you say Zuckerberg is a a visionary akin to Jobs or Gates because he had an original idea with social media...except lots of sites had social media before Facebook -- as evidenced by numerous posts in this thread.

Then you say Jobs or Gates didn't invent computers, so Zuckerberg didn't have to invent social media to be a visionary, but just that he has the most popular platform right now which makes him a visionary. That is like saying Hannah Montana sells the most records, thus she is a musical visionary. Again, makes no sense.

Then you say Facebook is like the iPhone in that it was original because it combined lots of other things into one thing. Okay, that possibly makes sense (though it is a huge stretch).

However, if Jobs had only created the iPhone, I doubt anyone would be calling him a visionary. He had his hand in the personal computer, design software, the iPod, the iPhone, Pixar, NeXT...all of those combined make him a visionary. Not just the iPhone.

Gates had MS-DOS, Windows, development tools, software integration that probably has yet to be matched, and now does charity. All of that combined make him a visionary.

Zuckerberg is playing fast and loose with user-generated content (private data) and selling advertising with it to become rich. I can't fathom how anyone can misconstrue creative geniuses like Jobs and Gates with Zuckerberg. I think being skeptical with whom you put your information with is really important, and if Zuckerberg's philosophy is to be social by default, then people have a right to know what they are signing up for.

I think the guy is smart and kudos to him on his success. I use Facebook, I like Facebook. But I can't possibly comprehend how you can think he changed the way we communicate when everything that's on Facebook has been done. He produces a service that can and has been duplicated, and doesn't produce anything else except advertising revenue. If history shows anything (especially in the tech industry), that revenue model is short-term and shaky.

Why else do you think Google is into every other tech-space besides search engines? They know they have produce other services in order to stay afloat in the long-term.

Reuven
05-31-2010, 12:13 AM
Some of what's in the Time article came before Zuckerberg/FB decided to backtrack somewhat on the privacy issues earlier this week. By no means does this week's announcement represent a complete overhaul, but it does give users the opportunity to adjust their privacy settings a little more easily.

(...)

It's important to recognize that there's nothing really inherently :EVILLE: about social media, but people do have to be smart about the way they use it. I love the fact that I can keep in touch with some people I haven't seen in years, or that I was able to find a half brother just a few years ago, and actually meet him 1 1/2 years ago. It's also given me a great way to open up discussions with my junior high kids about their 'digital footprints' and what kind of legacy they want to leave online (the use of social media in school is a whole other kettle of fish). Certainly many people have learned the hard way that just because you can post something, doesn't mean you should. In some ways though, those of us who have been posting on message boards since the early/mid-90's have already been aware of those types of issues.No there is nothing EVILLE about social media. FSU is part of that media. ;) And I’ve no doubt about some people finding FB very useful. That’s a major part of why FB is soo attractive to people.


The most important thing to remember about any interactions online is that once you've posted it, it's pretty much impossible to take it back. And it *is* up to the user (or their parents) to make sure they understand the risks and responsibilities of using social media. It *is* a whole new world out there...That’s the crux. I demand a lot of control over what info I put out there. I realise FB does allow one to set privacy levels. But FB has this habit of instituting new programmes that share users data and either not telling users, or being circumspect about it. They react only when there is a hue and cry when users have to scramble to reset privacy settings. So that does make it kinda hard to determine risk factors.

ETA: Ran across another article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/human-rights-first/face-it-facebook-you-just_b_589045.html) at Huffington Post and in it, the author says something I’ve been clumsily trying to say:

Facebook "missed the mark" because the company just doesn't get it. Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg have taken the position that sharing of information and connectedness is the new social norm, and that privacy is outmoded. That approach has left Facebook trying to innovate its way around a fundamental human right that the company has a responsibility to respect -- privacy. Until Facebook takes that responsibility seriously -- starting with a full understanding of the right to privacy and building on that understanding with a proactive set of policies -- it will continue to founder.

Facebook's entire business model is based on aggregating and sharing user information. Facebook's privacy standards use "opt out" rather than "opt in" defaults, a policy that permits third party sharing of data without informing users. Even worse, Facebook's code has errors that permit even more data to leak out. I fear that Facebook's new strategy will simply be more of the same.

timing
05-31-2010, 02:14 AM
The most important thing to remember about any interactions online is that once you've posted it, it's pretty much impossible to take it back. And it *is* up to the user (or their parents) to make sure they understand the risks and responsibilities of using social media. It *is* a whole new world out there...

I know teenagers who have posted things on facebook which have come back to haunt them months later, when they no longer even remember what they posted.

I'm not on facebook because it is set up as an "opt out" system not an "opt in" system which is known for making changes which end up putting more stuff "out" by default. People scramble to again limit who can see their stuff after these changes. However, you don't know who has seen things you intended to be visible only to a limited audience before you 'fix' your settings.

IceAlisa
05-31-2010, 05:33 AM
What I don't get, hydro is why you keep bringing in Zuckerberg's and FB's privacy issues. What does that have to do with anything? Can creative people be assholes? Yes, they can.

Was FB innovative? Ye,s it was. It did something other social networking sites did not and accomplished something other networking sites did not, therefore creating something other networking sites did not, therefore being original. Do you get it now? What does Hanna Montana have to do with this?

And, more importantly, did you not see me saying that yes, Z is an ass, an arrogant ass but that is not mutually exclusive with creativity and success very early in life, in fact, it frequently goes hand in hand.

So, what is your point?

*Jen*
05-31-2010, 08:03 AM
What I don't get, hydro is why you keep bringing in Zuckerberg's and FB's privacy issues. What does that have to do with anything?

Possibly because it's a thread about facebook privacy concerns...:shuffle:

IceAlisa
05-31-2010, 07:23 PM
Possibly because it's a thread about facebook privacy concerns...:shuffle:

The thread is but you've been here long enough to know that every single post doesn't have to be addressing the issue related to the thread title. :shuffle:

It appears to me that hydro was making some kind of argument to which his Zuckerberg comments seem unrelated.
But if I understand correctly, hydro is trying to prove that Z is not a visionary because he is an asshole. And because social networking sites existed before. OK, forget the iPhone, how about Google? Search engines sure existed before Google. And yet Google is on top of the game. But because there are other search engines, Google generates income by ads and Brin and Page didn't INVENT it, they are not visionaries either. Right?

hydro
05-31-2010, 07:59 PM
The thread is but you've been here long enough to know that every single post doesn't have to be addressing the issue related to the thread title. :shuffle:

It appears to me that hydro was making some kind of argument to which his Zuckerberg comments seem unrelated.
But if I understand correctly, hydro is trying to prove that Z is not a visionary because he is an asshole. And because social networking sites existed before. OK, forget the iPhone, how about Google? Search engines sure existed before Google. And yet Google is on top of the game. But because there are other search engines, Google generates income by ads and Brin and Page didn't INVENT it, they are not visionaries either. Right?

Um, I'm the one that brought up Google :rolleyes:

And you said visionary akin to Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, and I've already outlined why Zuckerberg can't even be in the same breath as them. I couldn't care less if he's an asshole. You are the one who said he's a visionary when someone called him an asshole. Your memory is really short in this thread, jumping from one point to the next than contradicting yourself. It's sort of pointless now. :duh:

IceAlisa
05-31-2010, 08:44 PM
Um, I'm the one that brought up Google :rolleyes: So?



And you said visionary akin to Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, and I've already outlined why Zuckerberg can't even be in the same breath as them.
1. I said "almost on par with". The difference is subtle enough to escape your attention.
You are the one who said he's a visionary when someone called him an asshole.

2. Someone called him what I understood to mean a half-wit, not an asshole. These are the differences that once again escape you but seem obvious to me. I have addressed that difference with Jen. I agree with the latter but not the former, hence my entire argument. I have already discussed this particular post with Jen. Yet you keep butting in...


Your memory is really short in this thread, jumping from one point to the next than contradicting yourself. It's sort of pointless now. :duh:

My memory is perfectly fine. But if you don't trust it, feel free to reread the original post by Jen that sparked the argument and then talk about confusion. I have been perfectly clear. I said that Z is almost on par with Gates and Jobs, not a half-wit. I said that the policy of FB is unfortunate and that he seems to be an arrogant ass. But I insisted that FB was original in the way it exists today and completely overshadows other networking sites. I believe FB has changed the way we communicate. I have not at all contradicted myself.

Jen and I resolved our argument or so it appears to me. She said she called Z Zuckertwit, not Zuckerwit and it satisfies me.

So, once again what are you going on about? You seem to be going in circles and I agree that it's pointless.

hydro
05-31-2010, 08:53 PM
So?


1. I said "almost on par with". The difference is subtle enough to escape your attention.


Not really, I made it quite clear he doesn't even belong in the same breath as Jobs or Gates. A few others in this thread have even agreed with me. There was nothing subtle in your post. It was a bad comparison...it's okay, admitting it is the first step.



My memory is perfectly fine.

Clearly not. I've posted twice how you've contradicted yourself. And WindSpirit even pointed out you're not making sense. And Prancer sort of did as well.


So, once again what are you going on about?

That Zuckerberg is NOT a visionary "almost on par with" Steve Jobs or Bill Gates.

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point, and now you're boring me. Come up with more substantive (or coherent) posts, and we can play again elsewhere. :rolleyes:

IceAlisa
05-31-2010, 09:18 PM
Not really, I made it quite clear he doesn't even belong in the same breath as Jobs or Gates. A few others in this thread have even agreed with me. There was nothing subtle in your post. It was a bad comparison...it's okay, admitting it is the first step.

I said "almost on par". I stand by my statement.




Clearly not. I've posted twice how you've contradicted yourself. And WindSpirit even pointed out you're not making sense. And Prancer sort of did as well. I have not contradicted myself. I have extrapolated on my point. To borrow ag's favorite word you appear to be conflating the two.




That Zuckerberg is NOT a visionary "almost on par with" Steve Jobs or Bill Gates.
Fine. You disagree with me. Contrary to what you may believe it is not my mission in life to change your mind. :P


You're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point, and now you're boring me. Come up with more substantive (or coherent) posts, and we can play again elsewhere. :rolleyes: Beam, your own eye, etc. I think Pot. Kettle. Black. is overused. ;)

Reuven
05-31-2010, 09:20 PM
Um..PM?

IceAlisa
05-31-2010, 09:22 PM
Nah. I am done with hydro here.

Really
06-01-2010, 04:30 AM
THAT was interesting....:yawn:

numbers123
06-02-2010, 12:23 AM
I reposted this on my profile, because I found a couple of my friends statuses on the youropenbook.org


It is worth repeating, because some of you don't have privacy settings at the most secure levels. go to youropenbook.org to see if someone can find your status in facebook. It might surprise you. Then go to reclaimprivacy.org to check on your privacy settings. If you don't find yourself with a key word, copy your entire status wording to check if your information can be seen.

And I did the reclaimprivacy.org scan today as facebook told me that there was an enhancement to the security settings. Yup, I had to change a small setting on my profile to maintain the highest level possible.