11–19 of 19 posts
Today Facebook is really asking for bad press about its default user settings. This just made it to the BBC: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1711973
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-113763...
The privacy angle looks like a non-issue to me. Your public items get added to their news feed. They could view that information even if they didn't issue a friend request.
Agreed. I suspect people have their newsfeeds set to "friends only", in which case the "de-facto follow feature" shouldn't work unless the friend request is accepted.
The privacy angle looks like a non-issue to me. Your public items get added to their news feed. They could view that information even if they didn't issue a friend request.
Today Facebook is really asking for bad press about its default user settings. This just made it to the BBC: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1711973
It's easy enough to point fingers at a company with as little apparent regard for privacy as Facebook, without searching for non-issues and exceptional cases to be outraged by.
Today Facebook is really asking for bad press about its default user settings. This just made it to the BBC: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1711973
why not link directly to the BBC? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-113763...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see any actual problem with those exact changes — well, actually, I don't get all that "oh noes, information I've specifically made public , is being read by others! my privacy is being violated!1" thing. I believe when one publishes something as visible for everyone he must assume that everyone and his mom will read that. Being "public but private" is logical nonsense, possible just because most of time nobo…
I think what your argument centers on is when you say " must assume " it will be viewable by everyone. The way I see it, Facebook started as a private communication channel: only my friends can see what I write. Over time this has evolved into a very public channel but users are not aware about the changes. To me, this is a bait and switch move much like Scribd's switch to a paywall. See this discussion from yesterda…
Sorry to snip up your comment like that, but I did it to make a point that agrees with you - I think you gotta assume everything on Facebook these days is potentially accessible to anyone looking closely into you, and treat it as such. The problem isn't so much that Facebook is now a public medium, it's that some people aren't treating it that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think what your argument centers on is when you say " must assume " it will be viewable by everyone. The way I see it, Facebook started as a private communication channel: only my friends can see what I write. Over time this has evolved into a very public channel but users are not aware about the changes. To me, this is a bait and switch move much like Scribd's switch to a paywall. See this discussion from yesterda…
> The way I see it, Facebook started as a private communication channel ... [and] has evolved into a very public channel... Sorry to snip up your comment like that, but I did it to make a point that agrees with you - I think you gotta assume everything on Facebook these days is potentially accessible to anyone looking closely into you, and treat it as such. The problem isn't so much that Facebook is now a public medi…