Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Wants You To Snitch On Friends Not Using Their Real Name

paulbernal.wordpress.com

161–164 of 164 posts

Re: Facebook Wants You To Snitch On Friends Not Using Their Real Name

#161
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now imagine a whole generation socializing under these artificial restrictions. Can you imagine how stifling being raised under an umbrella of constant surveillance by your peer group, family, future employers and advertisers would be to your personality and relationships? We're developing a society of sociopatic egotists.

That assumes that people don't ignore the constant surveillance and largely do whatever they were going to do anyway. Most non-geeks seem to do just that. (Whether that is a good idea is another matter. Also, I still don't like Facebook.)

For anyone interested, there's a visual novel that explores this idea.

"Don't Take it Perosnally Babe, it Just Ain't Your Story."

---

The driving motivation for the story is that this generation _raised_ on "4chan" and "Facebook" shares deep and intimate things with each other _knowing full well_ that what they're sharing may be under review.

Towards the end it implies that privacy is an antiquated concept; and yet that changes surprisingly little.

---

I'm with you; whether it is a good idea or not, I can't say. I'll just wait until it manifests in culture.

That being said: I don't like the implications of getting rid of privacy. Not when society likes to latch on to the most unimportant of biases when making incredibly important decisions. (For e.g: getting turned down for a job offer because of some political, philosophical, or religious rant on your Facebook wall.)

If you're going to hold such things over my head; then I'd rather not share them with you. -- And that (to me) is the essence of privacy.

It's why I like Google+ and Diaspora so much. I think the concept of "Circles" or "Aspects" gives the user a lot of flexibility when it comes to managing their own personal idea of privacy.

Re: Facebook Wants You To Snitch On Friends Not Using Their Real Name

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>so these venues get empty pleasantries from me, certainly nothing controversial in any way. Is nobody familiar with the privacy settings? Facebook has lists, G+ has circles. One for family, one for acquaintances, one for close friends, one for business. Guess who gets to see the pictures from the house party and who doesn't?

Facebook had lists. I was happily using them. Then Facebook added more lists with default names, with no way to delete them. Now I'm never 100% confident I've got everyone in the correct list. Who knows what will happen the next time they update?

Adding new lists somehow made the existing lists you had set up inconsistent? I don't understand.

Re: Facebook Wants You To Snitch On Friends Not Using Their Real Name

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook had lists. I was happily using them. Then Facebook added more lists with default names, with no way to delete them. Now I'm never 100% confident I've got everyone in the correct list. Who knows what will happen the next time they update?

Adding new lists somehow made the existing lists you had set up inconsistent? I don't understand.

Facebook pushes the their new lists, while ignoring the old ones. I'm constantly suggested to add people to the new lists, but not to the old ones. I started doing this, not realising the lists were different, as my old lists have the same names as the new ones. The only way to distinguish between them is the new icon. Facebook's list management tools don't make this easy to fix up.

Re: Facebook Wants You To Snitch On Friends Not Using Their Real Name

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are basically under constant surveillance by our peer group and family, just not in an Orwellian sense. It's incredibly common for people to grow up afraid to say many things, having massive restrictions on some parts of their personalities due to those kinds of pressures. We see it most obviously with the single big things such as "I can't tell my religious family I'm an atheist" or "I got ostracised for dating s…

sorry I dont understand your last point - can you please rephrase it for me? thank you

I was trying to say that maybe total surveillance would feel less bad than occasional surveillance, since you would be forced to "get used to it" from an early age, and for things where there are no particular consequences other than embarassment, maybe that would be an improvement.

(Yet, that only applies if you assume the oversight is only for spotting criminals and the guides for criminal activity exactly agree with your own, and the system is fair).

Post reply on HN