Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Calls All-Hands Meeting On Privacy

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the all-opposed-say-aye dept.

Privacy 302

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Do niggers use facebook? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32201404)

i'm curious..

Re:Do niggers use facebook? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32201422)

I dunno. Do racist trolls use Facebook? You ought to know.

Re:Do niggers use facebook? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32201906)

I dunno, seems the parent was right on topic. *shrugs*

I don't know. Do Limeys use facebook? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32202530)

I'm curious

Limey (2, Insightful)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201414)

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

Re:Limey (5, Insightful)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201464)

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 (5, Insightful)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201536)

"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 (2, Interesting)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201588)

"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 (2, Interesting)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201702)

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 (5, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201990)

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 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32202204)

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 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32202262)

"Where did they all go?"

Economies of scale happened to them

Re:Limey (0)

hobo sapiens (893427) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202270)

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 (3, Insightful)

BitHive (578094) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202364)

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

Re:Limey (5, Insightful)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201708)

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 (2, Insightful)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202088)

The problem isn't the opt-in.

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

Re:Limey (5, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201916)

"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 (4, Insightful)

metrometro (1092237) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202166)

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 (2, Funny)

hobo sapiens (893427) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202312)

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 (4, Insightful)

metrometro (1092237) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202454)

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 [omidyar.com]

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

Re:Limey (1)

hobo sapiens (893427) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202516)

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

Re:Limey (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202720)

...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 (3, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201560)

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

Re:Limey (1)

allaunjsilverfox2 (882195) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201578)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32202688)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32201712)

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.

Stop complaining (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32201720)

Facebook is free. Stop complaining you spoiled brat. Don't use it if you're that worried.

Re:Limey (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32201782)

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

Re:Limey (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201940)

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 (2, Interesting)

zblack_eagle (971870) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202196)

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 (3, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201508)

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

Re:Limey (2, Interesting)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201564)

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

Re:Limey (5, Insightful)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201594)

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

Zuckerberg's attitude is clear (5, Interesting)

rsborg (111459) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201614)

Link [businessinsider.com] :

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 (5, Insightful)

kuzb (724081) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201862)

Just deleted my account. Screw facebook.

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear (3, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202008)

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 (-1, Flamebait)

insertwackynamehere (891357) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202404)

Just for the record, feeling good about not having a Facebook makes you a douche. I don't care if you abstain, but taking pride in it and making it a defining trait is sad.

Re:Zuckerberg's attitude is clear (4, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202182)

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 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32202628)

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

Any grownups work there? (3, Insightful)

18_Rabbit (663482) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201436)

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? (2, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201494)

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? (4, Insightful)

Roberticus (1237374) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201650)

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? (3, Funny)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202766)

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 [facebook.com]

Will the meeting be webcast by default? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32201448)

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

Overheard at the meeting (3, Funny)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201480)

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

Here's the problem. (5, Insightful)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201530)

"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. (5, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201638)

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. (3, Insightful)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201934)

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

Re:Here's the problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32202076)

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. (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202108)

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. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32201648)

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. (5, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202176)

"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.

Privacy is only one issue... (3, Informative)

Statecraftsman (718862) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201558)

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 [trygnulinux.com] .

Re:Privacy is only one issue... (1)

Statecraftsman (718862) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201580)

s/leave without/leave while/

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

Gander, Goose (5, Interesting)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201610)

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

Re:Gander, Goose (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201874)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32202624)

That idiom doesn't mean what you think it means

Enough facebook posts! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32201632)

Slashdot is spending too much time on Facebook posts. At this rate, you will need a Facebook section like the Apple section. "Someone at Facebook is having a meeting" isn't news. It *might* be news if they change their policies significantly. That might fit under social, and privacy. But I can't keep up with my Slashdot RSS feed, and I've turned off almost everything. It's getting silly.

Facebook Retroactively Makes More User Data Public [slashdot.org]
Facebook's "Evil Interfaces" [slashdot.org]
A Call For an Open, Distributed Alternative To Facebook [slashdot.org]
Senators Tell Facebook To Quit Sharing Users' Info [slashdot.org]
Creating a Better Facebook [slashdot.org]

This is within the past 2 weeks, not including Idle stories, or things indirectly talking about facebook.

Posting private info to a public website (5, Insightful)

Mr. Neutron (3115) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201656)

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 (4, Interesting)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201746)

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 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32201774)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32202042)

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 (1)

Jon-1 (470969) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202080)

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 (3, Insightful)

drooling-dog (189103) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202392)

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 (2, Interesting)

Muggins the Mad (27719) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202660)

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 (4, Insightful)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202686)

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 [eff.org]

Too Late (2, Insightful)

Graff (532189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201692)

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 (4, Interesting)

NF6X (725054) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202168)

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 [joindiaspora.com] 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.

it is easy to delete your account (5, Interesting)

meatron (1718302) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201694)

according to this blog [brokep.com] 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 (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201756)

"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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32201978)

You were probably looking down the wrong tubes, Dick.

Re:it is easy to delete your account (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202362)

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 (1)

Sot32 (1230720) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202418)

according to this blog [brokep.com] 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 (2, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202436)

Beating your profile at yahtzee will also destroy it.

Second in the series, what's next? (5, Interesting)

Boss Sauce (655550) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201726)

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? (4, Funny)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202134)

...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? (1)

ethicalcannibal (1632871) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202606)

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.

Who has the issue? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32201738)

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

I've removed everything from my profile (2, Interesting)

rAiNsT0rm (877553) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201754)

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 (1)

Azureflare (645778) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201778)

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 (1)

rAiNsT0rm (877553) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202432)

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 (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201866)

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 (3, Interesting)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201962)

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 (1)

MagikSlinger (259969) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201870)

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 (0, Redundant)

Bob_Who (926234) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202340)

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.

That's OK - FB Doesn't want you either. (2, Insightful)

rueger (210566) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201846)

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. (4, Insightful)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201926)

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. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32202562)

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.

I know what you should do. (2, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201850)

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

Who's attending the meeting... (4, Interesting)

One Louder (595430) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201886)

... and what are their names and addresses?

e4=. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32201904)

converSations where 7o have to decide

Unlikely (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201924)

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... (5, Interesting)

seebs (15766) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201950)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32202032)

Well, I hope that's been trashed.

subject of meeting? (3, Funny)

sparrowhead (1795632) | more than 4 years ago | (#32201986)

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. (1)

Pherlin (1131333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202336)

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

The thing with Facebook is this ... well, *these* (4, Informative)

2muchcoffeeman (573484) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202394)

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 [facebook.com] , which its members voted in favor of adopting by about a 3:1 margin. So what happened to that?

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

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 (2, Interesting)

moore.dustin (942289) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202472)

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 (1)

melted (227442) | more than 4 years ago | (#32202780)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?