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!

cancel ×

371 comments

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

Useful info (5, Funny)

gazbo (517111) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497204)

Shame he'll not be able to hear how wrong he is through his insulating walls of billions of dollars. In fact it's surprising moot isn't aware of this issue given his similarly vast wealth.

Re:Useful info (5, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497288)

Because, of course, billions make you right.

Re:Useful info (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497348)

"Argumentum ad argentum"

Re:Useful info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497630)

"Argumentum ad argentum"

Argument against a photo lab in Los Angeles?

Re:Useful info (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497356)

Yes, it does. If you're aim is to make lots of money. If you don't like FB's policies, here's a shocker for you, don't use it you twat.

Re:Useful info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497564)

Yes, it does. If you're aim is to make lots of money. If you don't like FB's policies, here's a shocker for you, don't use it you twat.

I don't for myself, but you know what? Sometimes you don't want to let a con man take advantage of other people. Yes, it's terrible wanting to impose on somebody else's freedom and liberty, and I'll feel bad about it for about -3 seconds, but hey, it's for the best really.

Shoot, you might as well be making the argument, don't like being shot? Don't stand where somebody is shooting. Reasonable to a certain extent, but there's also reason for people to be restrained in where they shoot.

Re:Useful info (5, Insightful)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497790)

I don't for myself, but you know what? Sometimes you don't want to let a con man take advantage of other people. Yes, it's terrible wanting to impose on somebody else's freedom and liberty, and I'll feel bad about it for about -3 seconds, but hey, it's for the best really.

You can't help those that don't want to be helped. You ought to believe that people are entitled to make mistakes, if only because you want the right to take actions that others believe are mistaken.

Consider the situation if the roles were reversed. You are a consumer that enjoys Facebook and doesn't care much about the privacy implications of having your vacation pictures and some banal details online. Some guy tries to explain to you that its evil and simply will not take "I like Facebook leave me alone" for an answer. What are you supposed to think, other than "this guy ought to mind his own business"?

It's disturbingly common how many intelligent but partisan people get into the rut of believing that everyone who has thought about something must have come to the same conclusion. I feel like I hear it from everywhere these days -- the FSF crowed, the console fanboys, the Tea Party -- everyone seems convinced that no honest person could possibly disagree with them. Again, these are generally intelligent people, so much so that you would imagine they could grok the idea that thoughtful and honest people could legitimately disagree about the purity/utility of FSF, the merit of consoles or PCs or the values and policies in our country.

At least I imagine it sometimes, and then I read these posts and am shaken back into hyper-partisan reality.

Re:Useful info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497854)

what's with all the animosity? I can only imagine you must own Facebook shares to be so agitated with someone's disapproval... ??

Re:Useful info (3, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497558)

Because, of course, billions make you right.

I'm wrong pretty often, despite my best efforts. I'd sure like billions to comfort me ;-)

Re:Useful info (3, Funny)

BigDXLT (1218924) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497582)

Right, wrong, he's the guy with the money.

Re:Useful info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497714)

Worthington law: "people that make more money than you are better than ypu and beyond criticism"

Re:Useful info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497888)

"All I want is the chance to prove money won't make me happy" - Spike Milligan

Re:Useful info (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497530)

Moot is wealthy?

Re:Useful info (2)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497766)

yeah, that came as a surprise for me. i'm not sure how he could develop a business model outside porn ads on 4chan.

perhaps large companies are paying him not to introduce an /i/ board?

The final showdown of final destiny... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497206)

The one who spread internet attention-whoring face-to-face with the one who spread anonymity...
disgunbegud.gif

Remind me, which one is the billionare? (2)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497214)

Facebook took off precisely by leveraging pre-existing real-world relationships, but allowing people to be exclusive in sharing what they write.

All of that is based on people as people, not as ideas.

If you want ideas to predominate, come to slashdot or, I guess, 4chan.

Re:Remind me, which one is the billionare? (5, Insightful)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497310)

Exactly. Sorry Moot, you have a good point, but Zuckerberg didn't hear you over the sound of how much money he made in the time it took you to make that statement. Moot seems to genuinely care about online anonymity, but Zuckerberg cares about making money and doesn't think twice about selling every piece of info he has on you to anyone who wants it.

Re:Remind me, which one is the billionare? (3, Insightful)

surgen (1145449) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497398)

>Remind me, which one is the billionare?

I'd say that's a bit of a false comparison. I'd be surprised if moot has even 1/4 of the business ambitions with his website than Zuckerburg does with his.

Re:Remind me, which one is the billionare? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497466)

Yeah, as a not-too-distant friend, not sure what he is getting at in all honesty.

Both Facebook and 4chan have different targets.
Facebook is a place for people communicate and evolve.
4chan is a place for ideas to evolve. (and sometimes, go to die horrible deaths, same for Facebook actually...)

Anonymity tends to allow ideas to be the forefront of thought, rather than who is behind the idea.
While this can be really helpful in some cases, it is also detrimental because some might not take the idea seriously enough due to the fact it was suggested by some random person who wishes to be anonymous.
Of course, as you can see in some boards on 4chan, as well as the hundreds of other imageboards around the globe that have the same philosophy, Anonymity + audience = retards.
While 4chan, for a while, tended to be smart people pretending to be idiots, in recent years, it has evolved in to idiots pretending to be smart. The smart people are now in the minority since 4chan has become more mainstream with people. (which has been a pain on poor mootykins since he has had to deal with all sorts of shit, from child-porn to attacks on major businesses, and even threats on others lives, some that have been carried through with)
The content has also suffered too, from what used to be brilliant photoshop threads to terrible MSPaint threads with barely any effort put in.
But this is also due to the fact that people have been brought in to an environment where threads can die within a matter of minutes. Taking your time just can't work. (which is why i have suggested he split up the more popular boards and let the community load-balance themselves, which should balance out itself within about a month probably)

Facebook, despite its privacy-raping nature, is really helpful for people who know each other to stay in contact with each other more often, especially if they lead busy lives.
The privacy-concerns are a bit of an issue admittedly. Personally i don't care as much. To have content related to my personality would be a god-send.

Re:Remind me, which one is the billionare? (4, Insightful)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497794)

4chan was never good

Re:Remind me, which one is the billionare? (1)

noshellswill (598066) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497868)

Nope: Zuckerberg's just another power-trip buttfyucker who wants to know where to send his thugs whenever somebody cuts him a new *zzwhole.

Oh he gets it (1)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497224)

Remember Clasmates.com? Sounded like a great idea, but they charged money to use it. Facebook is free, and is for people who want to know their other real life friends/family. You just gotta treat Facebook with the tact of if you were running for public office... Because if you run for public office, they'll certainly look at what you said on Facebook. To me, it is a win because we won't have future politicians of America to have talked all sorts of drunken fratboy chat on Facebook in their younger years. Once this happens, people might go,"Oh, wow, I gotta monitor what comes out of my mouth instead of being a non-stop idiot"

Re:Oh he gets it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497320)

Being a non-stop idiot has never stopped a single politician. They continue to say ridiculous things all the time, because we all know the absence of evidence....

Re:Oh he gets it (2)

yeshuawatso (1774190) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497350)

...Once this happens, people might go,"Oh, wow, I gotta monitor what comes out of my mouth instead of being a non-stop idiot"

Yeah, because being non-stop idiots with diarrhea of the mouth has stopped soooo many politicians from getting and/or staying elected. You might want to hear/read some of the dribble these politicians are spewing now on Facebook, Fox News, and MSNBC and you "poke" me when one of these politicians lose an election because of a stupid/racist/offensive status update.

Re:Oh he gets it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497650)

It depends on who's saying what and who's looking to manipulate it. Dean Scream anyone?

Re:Oh he gets it (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497588)

Facebook is only free if your privacy has no value.

Re:Oh he gets it (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497822)

you don't have to update your friends on every BJ you happen to give or receive, you know.

yes, control of what you post on facebook is firmly in Zuckerberg's hands, but control of what you type in there yourself is quite literally in your hands

Re:Oh he gets it (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497860)

The sitting president wrote a book that discussed his use of various illegal drugs.

The one before that was a heavy drinker and probably used cocaine.

The one before that admitted he inhaled before he was elected and sat through a huge sex scandal.

FTFA, plus pen names are way pre internet (1)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497244)

“Mark Zuckerberg has kind of equated anonymity with a lack of authenticity, almost a cowardice,” said Poole. “I would say that’s totally wrong. I think anonymity is authenticity. It allows you to share in a completely unvarnished, unfiltered, raw way. I think that’s something that’s extremely valuable. In the case of content creation, it just allows you to play in ways that you may not have otherwise. We believe in content over creator.”

Maybe Zuckerberg never heard of pen names when he was busy with more important things in school? His FB policy was always a bit of a puzzle to me, but not one big enough to look into until I saw this on /.

duh (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497246)

Mark Zuckerberg is getting it. lots of it. billions actually.

He also gets anonimity. He just does not care about (other people's) anonimity.

Re:duh (1, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497338)

Thanks Mark. Now go fix your website. It's almost as lame as 4chan.

moot (4, Funny)

psergiu (67614) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497252)

moot on /. ? a 1st page article about 4chan ?
How long until /. introduces image attachements for each reply ? :)

Re:moot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497270)

rules 1 and 2, newfag

Re:moot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497442)

LOL U MAD

Re:moot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497538)

>implying it is not you who are mad

Re:moot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497586)

It is not I who am crazy. It is I who am mad!

Re:moot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497740)

ohboyherewego.jpg

Re:moot (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497552)

This illustrates part of Moot's point, I think; before you can begin to receive his idea, let alone process it, you already know who made the statement, and that has colored your perception in some way (you aren't obviously for or against 4chan, but you clearly know what it is). Anonymity is therefore arguably better for the transmission and sharing of ideas, because each idea is forced/allowed to stand on its own. Obviously there is also a place for credited work, such as peer-reviewed submissions, but I think his position is a strong one.

I think he's missing the point of Facebook a little bit, though; it isn't (at least in my experience) an exchange of ideas or the nexus of a creative endeavor. It's a really fancy online address book.

But the two venues are way different (1)

argan0n (684665) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497266)

facebook 4chan userbase may naturally overflow from one to the other, but I see the two sites as representing two sides of online communication. One is all about building lingering connections managed by the site, the other is about ephemeral connections (managed by memes?).

Re:But the two venues are way different (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497508)

The overlap I would say shows that they serve different purposes

he get's it...... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497276)

Zuck is after one thing, a giant vault of money to swim in and do $5000 an hour hookers on. If anyone thinks he care about anything but money and profits they are incredibly disillusioned.

Money and profit are the only motive.. Period.

How does Zuckerman not get it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497280)

He got to be worth $13.5 billion by being an asshole, so what reason would he have to stop being an asshole?

4chan and facebook are both wrong. (0)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497302)

They are different at ends of the spectrum, but too much of either is bad. 4chan is worthless, plain and simple (that includes so-called Anonymous). Facebook is a not worthless, but abuses what they have/know.

Much like politics, you never want someone too far right or too far left.

Re:4chan and facebook are both wrong. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497426)

You sound too far in the middle. Are you from Neutropolis, the capital of Neutral Planet by chance?

Re:4chan and facebook are both wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497436)

It does not seem plain or simple that 4chan is worthless.

Re:4chan and facebook are both wrong. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497504)

I wouldn't say 4chan is worthless, but that 99% of what it produces is worthless by almost any definition. However, the remaining 1% is probably more valuable than 99% of what other communities put out. The main problem is that 4chan as a whole unfairly gets lumped in with /b/, which is similar to judging an entire ethnicity based on the actions of its most maladjusted members.

Re:4chan and facebook are both wrong. (2)

inviolet (797804) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497532)

They are different at ends of the spectrum, but too much of either is bad. 4chan is worthless, plain and simple (that includes so-called Anonymous). Facebook is a not worthless, but abuses what they have/know.

Much like politics, you never want someone too far right or too far left.

Yep yep.

Republican: Society needs less sharing in order to create incentives!
Democrat: Society needs more sharing in order to create a middle class!
Me: Shut up, you're both right.

Likewise, we need anonymity in some contexts, and identity in others.

Re:4chan and facebook are both wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497534)

most importantly, you've found a way to feel superior to both

time to find your dox and post embarrassing things on your facebook...

Re:4chan and facebook are both wrong. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497600)

I don't think 4chan is worthless.

Vulgar, irreverent, mob mentality... Can you honestly say facebook is none of those things? Wouldn't you say that it is all of those things, if you were honest? Is the veneer of "manners" and censorship really so important for its own sake?

Maybe your mom would feel more comfortable in the lie (see what I did there?), but 4chan's /b/ is just as valid a form of human interaction and expression as facebook -- it merely operates by different rules, with different norms, and a different history. To deny that 4chan is important as a feature of the human condition is to deny that anyone has a mental life: the life that we don't blurt out in public for fear of social repercussions. Nevertheless, this aspect of humans does still exist, and you won't make it disappear just because you get rid of 4chan and other anonymous modes of communication. Repression makes things worse, never better.

You do need both -- and you can't assert that 4chan is "worthless" and be self-consistent. Facebook, in all its corporate data-farm glory, is no more legitimately "good" no matter how much less child porn, no matter how much less gore, no matter how popular it is, and no matter how wealthy its owners.

You're a a soft-skulled, sophomoric, self-righteous hypocrite. It doesn't say anything good about /. that you were modded up (why expect an enlightened, objective moderation response from the anonymous internet, though).

Still. Parent remains profoundly inane.

Re:4chan and facebook are both wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497612)

4chan worthless? Pedobear will have to beg to differ.

Re:4chan and facebook are both wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497668)

I think you have a worthless definition of worthless.

Re:4chan and facebook are both wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497688)

no u

Re:4chan and facebook are both wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497782)

Yeah. Except it's the other way around - FB is worthless and 4chan is awesome. Call, fun at least. But then again, I never understood why anyone ever registered on FB. I think the answer is probably Al Pacino's favorite sin.

They're both wrong. (-1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497326)

The value of Anonymity of course depends on the value of what you're doing with it.

Most people who use it do so to commit crimes, from trolling to murder.

The few who use it to tell the truth about abuses within government are to be weighed against that?

Re:They're both wrong. (2)

themightythor (673485) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497390)

Most people who use it do so to commit crimes, from trolling to murder.

Two things:

1) Do you have numbers to quantify "most"?
2) Since when is trolling a crime?

Re:They're both wrong. (0)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497726)

1. most = more than half. you can count them individually yourself, but I'm pretty sure it'll come out how i said it. probably by a couple of orders of magnitude.

2. since when isn't it?

Re:They're both wrong. (5, Interesting)

Tigger's Pet (130655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497396)

Are you trying to suggest that we shouldn't have anonymity because the bad side of it outweighs the good? I'd take the assholes, criminals and general wankers all day long as long as it means that people can have the ability to let the world know what is really going on in their various industries, countries, whatever-elses. If we were to have the ability to be anonymous removed then the world would be a far, far worse place. Anonymity is like everything else - what it achieves depends on what you decide to do with it - good or bad.

Re:They're both wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497472)

You're posting under an anonymous alias right now, moron.

Re:They're both wrong. (0)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497742)

No, you are. Mine can be traced to me by the simple expedient of getting a court order and serving /. with it.

Actually, I take that back. I'm pretty sure your IP and login (if you're logged in) were logged even though you posted using the AC flag.

Re:They're both wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497754)

That's moran. Look it up.

And I assume grandparent is currently thinking "Trolling is a art."

Re:They're both wrong. (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497568)

Most people who use it do so to commit crimes, from trolling to murder.

Am I using the anonymity afforded by an opaque slashdot account to commit crimes? Are you really saying I'm some sort of weird exceptional case? Really?

Re:They're both wrong. (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497800)

You're presuming your opaqueness.

Re:They're both wrong. (3, Interesting)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497584)

Do you have any numbers whatsoever to back up your claim that most anonymous entities are criminals, trolls, or murderers? Or are you just making shit up to back up the same position that you have taken numerous times in previous threads regarding anonymity, blair1q? Because if I recall correctly (and I do), you have made claims in the past that are basically along the lines of "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

For those of us with a sense of privacy, and who are a bit schooled in history, we realize just how silly and dangerous such a position is. So please, blair1q, before you go spewing more opinionated bile around Slashdot, could you back up some of your claims that:

Most people who use it do so to commit crimes, from trolling to murder.

Mind you, I count such practices as keeping sexual orientation, religious beliefs, political stances, and thoughts regarding your opinion of coworkers and/or bosses secret a form of anonymity, in the sense that you are keeping your personal details regarding those matters anonymous in the eyes of the public.

Re:They're both wrong. (0)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497778)

>you have made claims in the past that are basically along the lines of "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

I have not made that claim. You simply claim that's my position.

And if you want to keep secrets, keep them secret. That's not anonymity, it's secrecy.

Re:They're both wrong. (2)

discord5 (798235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497774)

Most people who use it do so to commit crimes, from trolling to murder.

Damn, there's laws against trolling now? I always thought people were joking about the internet police thing, but I guess it's all true then.

Oh shit, what have I done. Quick guys... HELP ME DELETE THE INTERNET!

Facebook is not for people who seek anonymity (4, Informative)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497360)

How anybody could not understand that, particularly an internet veteran like moot is rather mind boggling.

Re:Facebook is not for people who seek anonymity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497476)

internet veteran like moot

This kid is considered a "veteran" now? Hardly...

Facebook isn't "Social" (5, Insightful)

rsborg (111459) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497378)

Society is a balance between privacy and sharing. When a so-called "social" website decides that everything that goes in the website should be "public by default" that really violates the public/private social balance.

In the absence of strong information/data privacy laws, only a fool would use Facebook to put more than even the basic public details about themselves; you only need take a look at the growing legal [dailycaller.com] , workplace [google.com] and criminal [asylum.com] ramifications to see the end results.

The real tough part is that rabid facebook users can get you listed on Facebook just by "tagging" your photo. So you have to join to even purge the stupid... this is anti-social.

"moot" doesn't get it. (3, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497400)

Many (perhaps most) people do not want to be anonymous. This is Zuckerberg's market.

Re:"moot" doesn't get it. (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497562)

Many (perhaps most) people do not want to be anonymous. This is Zuckerberg's market.

Also known as "muggles" here on slashdot.

Re:"moot" doesn't get it. (1)

jovius (974690) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497680)

Exactly. Facebook account can be established with a pseudonym and there's no obligation to give out any info (or correct info). Likewise anyone can reveal his/her identity on 4chan. In any case they are not competing but complementing platforms.

Re:"moot" doesn't get it. (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497752)

Exactly, most people want to be famous. I say give 'em what they want.

It's entirely possible... (2)

sootman (158191) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497410)

... that Zuckerberg gets it just fine and knows his users don't care.

The point is moot. (0)

bistromath007 (1253428) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497424)

Since his website was long since turned over to federal agents, I don't think his opinion is very relevant.

Re:The point is moot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497492)

4chans was never "turned over" to federal agents. Moot has cooperated with criminal investigations when people use his site to coordinate hacking attempts or share child pornography, but that is hardly "turning over" and certainly not a bad thing to do, unles you are some kind of kid toucher

Fine,but... (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497448)

... simple economics suggest that in fact Zuckerberg is "doing it" exactly right IF his goal is to enrich himself.

Guess what Zuckerberg's goal is?

Me to Poole: (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497450)

Are we a wee bit jealous of Zuckerberg's success?

Given the ridiculous amount of success Facebook has seen over the past 5 years, I'd say you're talking out of your ass.

Re:Me to Poole: (1)

jcoy42 (412359) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497784)

One would almost think Poole was trolling.

But of course he'd never do that.

Re:Me to Poole: (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497882)

You didn't actually watch the discussion or even read what it was about, did you?

Needs to be two "internets" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497474)

one for financial transactions and serious intellectual discussion, where access guarantees your identity as being valid, where trolls cannot proliferate because they have to stand behind what they say and corporations cannot spend millions to astro-turf favorable commentary.

and a separate internet for all the non-secure anonymous conversations/trolling.

Of course, the irony of my comment is that I posted it anonymously.

Idiots (1, Insightful)

cfalcon (779563) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497494)

I love all these idiotic comments that Facebook MUST be right because they are successful. Would you stand up for an evil dictator with the same brevity? Well, he's in charge and all who opposed him are in anonymous graves SO HE MUST BE RIGHT!!1!1

These are good points. That facebook snookered everyone about privacy and is headed by a cocksure asshole who doesn't care about HIS privacy (possibly BECAUSE he is privileged) doesn't make it right just because all the lies about privacy, all the broken promises, still haven't acted to sink facebook in any way.

But he's rich herpderp doesn't stop you from critiquing, say, George Bush, does it? Or is it just that the Bushes aren't rich *enough*?

Re:Idiots (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497536)

Next time you should try taking the entire Prozac.

Re:Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497770)

Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler... Facebook?

Sure, I'm seeing the connection now.

Thanks for playing.

Anonymity IS cowardice (hence the userid) (4, Insightful)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497528)

One of my very first bosses said to me, back when I was still a teenager, that if you have something to say, you should be able to stand behind it. Even if all you're doing is dropping a note into the cash register saying "we keep running out of nickels," you should have enough character to sign it and date it. If you feel like you can't do that, maybe you shouldn't bother saying what it is you were planning to say. I still mostly agree with him about that.

Sure, I understand there are many cases where it would be preferable, or even essential, to remain anonymous: when you're acting as a whistleblower, for example, or working against an oppressive government. But for most exchanges that we have on a day-to-day basis -- the kind of thing Facebook is good for -- I think anonymity just spoils it.

Compare MySpace to Facebook, for example. On the former, you're inundated with friend requests from "DarkLordSeth79" and "PowrGrrl," where their photographs are screen grabs from anime or movies. I haven't used MySpace in a long time, but ultimately I found the only meaningful exchanges I had on there were with the dozen or so close friends whom I knew well already. Anybody whom I didn't know came off as a troll cloaked in MMORP wish-fulfillment. (See also the people who post on YouTube videos.)

So I guess in summary, 4chan has its place, and maybe that should remain the place for it. Facebook is a place for something else, and I for one am thankful.

Re:Anonymity IS cowardice (hence the userid) (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497698)

Standing behind what you say can put you out in front of a rifle. It's easier to stand behind what I say when standing behind the rifle

Re:Anonymity IS cowardice (hence the userid) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497716)

Your very first boss wasn't that smart.

1500's
"The Earth revolves around the Sun!" ---> DEATH
"Hahaha! GOD?!! Hahahaha!" ---> DEATH

Even now there are certain subjects to be discussed that you'd better not attach your name to. Some of these are in the 'politically correct' area People that in fact know better (in secret) will (in public) be hurrying to condemn you just to show everyone how correct and elevated they themselves are. Being redeemed after your death (like Galileo) doesn't really help you today. This is also true for certain topics in science.

Some topics have to do with people that can afford to prosecute you on someone else's (company or taxpayer) dime. Remember that blogger that has to shell out 60,000 quid for saying things that are factually correct? Right. It would have been more convenient for him if he had presented these facts anonymously. Cowardly? Perhaps. Smart? For sure.

Re:Anonymity IS cowardice (hence the userid) (5, Insightful)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497750)

Hah, when you're anonymous it's easier to debate because personal qualities of the people making the arguments are unknown; therefore, the arguments are more likely to stand on their own (although people do speculate).

That "stand behind it" crap is really all just manly-sounding bullshit.

Re:Anonymity IS cowardice (hence the userid) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497866)

Says the man whose posts on a forum with (what I assume is) his actual picture as an avatar.

Oh, yes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497780)

On the former, you're inundated with friend requests from "DarkLordSeth79" and "PowrGrrl," where their photographs are screen grabs from anime or movies.

Because I'm really Facebook friends of Admiral Viscount Nelson, who hasn't been alive for over two hundred years.

If you think Facebook is some champion of accountability, you are sadly mistaken.

Re:Oh, yes. (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497900)

Because I'm really Facebook friends of Admiral Viscount Nelson, who hasn't been alive for over two hundred years.

That's your choice, I guess. But as TFA points out, this is discouraged on Facebook, and the vast majority of my friends on there use their real names and an identifiable photograph. Most of the abstract ideas/dead people/companies/products that you can "be friends with" are actually pages, not user accounts, and the distinction between the two is pretty clear. For example, I don't believe pages can send you friend requests -- only the other way around.

Isn't he being a little hypocritical? (1)

noc007 (633443) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497560)

If he thinks people should be anonymous on the Internet, why does law enforcement get any of 4chan's logs when something illegal is posted? Putting aside arguments over whether a post was, was not, should be, or should not be illegal, the information was handed over and IMHO that's not anonymity.

Not trying to troll; it just seems a bit off.

Zuckerberg understands EXACTLY what moot is saying (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497580)

And he doesn't give a flying fuck. His business is making sure people are not anonymous, tracked, and well documented.

moot may have a valid point, but his goals are entirely different than Zuckerberg's.

Facebook is all about selling the data for people who are easily manipulated, Zuckerberg knows EXACTLY what he's doing, and he doesn't care that its 'A Bad Thing'. He's probably rather proud of it actually. You gotta admit, Facebook throws in its users face on a monthly basis that they are idiots and they keep on loving it.

And Zuckerberg can tell him back ... (4, Insightful)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497608)

That when building a tool for the masses you go by their preferences, not your own valid-but-uncommon ones. And the plain fact of the matter is that most people do not mind the Facebook privacy model as evidenced by their enthusiastic uptake of the system and their lackadaisical attitude towards all these "ZOMG Facebook is the devil" news stories.

I get it, the /. and 4chan crowds have a different set of preferences than the average consumer. This has been beaten to death so many times that there's scarcely anything more to add there except to remind you guys that not everyone must have the same preferences as you. In fact, many prefer the convenience of Facebook over the loss of privacy. We keep hearing the refrain of "if they knew the truth they'd change their minds" and yet they continue to not change their minds not matter how much bleating goes on, probably because they know and don't change their minds. I know this is an odd thing to the partisan/zealot, but really some people understand your position, heard the arguments and just aren't convinced. Try not to take it too personally.

Heck, I've got a Facebook page that shares all sorts of banality. And truth is I wouldn't at all be upset if everything on there was printed out and handed to every person I've ever known (I would feel sorry if they decided to actually peruse through that banality, to be honest). Is is "authentic" as Moot wants it to be? No and I bloody don't want that in the first instance. The fact that he thinks I give a fig about his preferences for the content and tone of my communications is really astounding, roughly equivalent to me thinking that he should consult me on whether he should have jam or cheese on his toast (cheese, with a tiny bit of Marmite).

TL;DR version: Not everyone is like you. This is a good thing, the world would be boring if everyone was the same. Quit projecting your own values onto others, at least in such cases where they have taken clear and unequivocal steps to demonstrate that they do not share those values.

Re:And Zuckerberg can tell him back ... (2, Insightful)

binary paladin (684759) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497898)

I wish I had mod points for this. Oh well.

One point I want to add though is that you don't lose any privacy by using Facebook. If Facebook jacked into my computer and started posting all kinds of things that I didn't authorize it to, that would be losing privacy. However, for the most part, my Facebook profile gets no more data than I CHOOSE to give it. I'm not giving up privacy by using it because nothing I put there is of a private nature. Otherwise it wouldn't be on Facebook.

There is nothing I post on Facebook that I give a rat shit about the whole world seeing including government agencies. It's boring, mundane shit. As for target advertising... can someone tell me why this is a bad thing? I'd rather see 5 adverts about the New York Jets than some product I don't give a shit about.

Right or wrong, (1)

Phizzle (1109923) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497610)

its a moot point!

Uh huh, that's our Mootles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497618)

It's funny of how moot's opinion of Anonymity changes with who he's talking too..

On 4chan, he loudly hates it, yet if he's addressing people who might make him millions of dollars off 'Anonymous', his pitch changes drastically...

Who cares what this assclown has to say? (1)

Powercntrl (458442) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497624)

There's pictures online of Mr. Poole nude that apparently were found by "anonymous" members of his beloved site. For someone so concerned with anonymity, it hasn't worked out so well for him. 4chan is the asshole of the internet (and yes, every once in awhile it farts to humorous results). Say what you will about Facebook, it has lots of popular time-wasting online games and it's a great way to share (family friendly) photos with your friends and relatives. To top it off, Facebook seems to have a business model that's working, as well.

To use a car analogy*, this is like the guy who owns the local scrap yard commenting on how Toyota runs their business.

* Wikipedia has portmanteaus, /. has car analogies
 

Mark isn't stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497878)

Mark makes is money with the data. Selling it, using it for targeted ads, etc. How do you think facebook makes money? hello???

It comes down to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497880)

It all comes down to getting laid. I'm pretty confident more people are getting laid through FB than through 4Chan.

the consumer (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497884)

Hello, the consumer does not care. This is pretty much like the android vs apple riots, again the consumer does not care about walled gardens and or privacy.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>