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!

Popularity Trumps Privacy For Many On Facebook

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the effort-is-a-barrier dept.

Facebook 99

Hugh Pickens writes "A recent study published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science found that adults have almost as much need for being popular on Facebook as teenagers do, and people who crave acceptance are more likely to share personal information, says Emily Christofides, lead author of the study. 'If you're someone who has your privacy settings set quite high — you don't post your birthday, you don't post what's going on in your life — you're not giving other people the opportunity to comment on those things,' says Christofides. 'You're going to find that there's less going on on your page, and you may actually feel less popular as a result.' The study also found that those with higher self-esteem are more likely to protect their personal information."

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

Google+ (3, Interesting)

zget (2395308) | more than 3 years ago | (#37072206)

This is also why Google+ will fail unless they get these types of people in.. And the majority of Google+'s users, those who tried to escape all the games and these users there, will be surprised. However, a social network is dead if no one is saying or sharing anything.

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37072270)

Social networks deserve to die. I don't care about the people who are my "friends" on facebook to be honest, and most of you don't either. When something happens important in my life, I pick up my phone, but not for the facebook app. I call the few people who I care to share things with. If the folks are your "friends" you have their email addresses and phone numbers, that is all the social network you need. Facebook is nothing more than a platform for data mining, and a way for Zynga to take as much money as they can, a few dollars at a time.

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37072388)

When something happens important in my life, I pick up my phone, but not for the facebook app. I call the few people who I care to share things with.

I'm not into social networking either, but phone call? Seriously? I haven't called anyone for non-business reasons since the early 2000s. Texting, ok. Other than that, e-mail and instant messaging.

Re:Google+ (1)

zget (2395308) | more than 3 years ago | (#37072482)

I would personally hate if someone always called me about every mundane detail in their life. I have lots of things to do, I don't want to chit-chat in phone unless it's actually something important. However I can go to Facebook when I have time and most of my friends (you know, you can choose them and even ignore the real life friends who spam shit) post only interesting or fun stuff. Besides, how do you show photos via phone?

Social networks aren't the problem here, they're really good especially if you know people from several parts of the world or travel a lot. You just have to use them correctly.

Re:Google+ (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 3 years ago | (#37072656)

Sorry, disagree with your last statement that social networks aren't the problem.

Facebook has some fundamental flaws, which arise from conflicts of interest between their users and their business model. Facebook don't want you to use it "correctly" as defined by the power user.
(Inb4 that trite meme about the users being the product.)

Maybe google, with it's broader product range, and less reliance on any individual product, will be able to offer a far superior product, because they don't have to cannibalize and whoring Google+ for every last penny.
Time will tell.

Re:Google+ (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37073618)

(Inb4 that trite meme about the users being the product.)

"trite meme"? That's an odd way to spell "absolute truth".

Re:Google+ (0)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 3 years ago | (#37074580)

"absolute truth"? That's an odd way to spell "thought-terminating cliche".

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37075960)

The only thought that's getting terminated is your own; you're shutting down in the face of facts you can't argue with.

It's not the marketing that bothers me (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075990)

I think it's fair to say I'm an extrovert -- I have a blog [fyngyrz.com] where I post things of interest to me and answer questions; I welcome decent quality remarks (I simply remove low-level gibbering before it ever sees the light of day), I have yet another personal website from the pre-blog days, I've released a fair number of PD software efforts (not GPL... GPL is da debbil), and I have a healthy social life at home. I stay in contact with my old friends (and I always have... I tend not to lose track of people I think are worth my time.) I run the key genealogy site for my family (thousands of detailed records and some very neat tech, too), have some free service efforts like this one [ourtimelines.com] ... and you can find my posts all over the web, including here, I'm not in the least afraid to put my opinion out there (laughs a bit ruefully...)

And I have zero interest in joining facebook. I kind of like the idea of Google's "circles", but I have zero interest in joining them, either. Part of it is the low quality of interaction I've seen on facebook (I think Google might be able to avoid this with those circles, but I'm just guessing... no experience); but the most important part of it is being annoyed, and I mean really annoyed, that these sites won't "allow" anonymity, which I consider a cornerstone of both free speech and free association. Facebook also has some items in their TOS that I find distasteful and unnecessary, part of the "save the children" witch-hunt. I've not (yet) seen that from Google, though frankly I expect to any day now.

It's also fair to say I enjoy high self-esteem. But that's not why I avoid facebook and Google+. I avoid them because in ways important to me, I see them as damaging society, ostracizing and marginalizing people who might very well make important social use of the service. That's their right, but it is also mine to say "I'm not going there under those conditions."

Re:Google+ (1)

Si (9816) | more than 3 years ago | (#37076064)

Facebook is a poor implementation* != social networks are the problem.

* For the sake of argument, at least.

Re:Google+ (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 3 years ago | (#37073006)

I would personally hate if someone always called me about every mundane detail in their life. -- Sorry, just feel it necessary at this moment to point out that I am enjoying a nice cup of tea after a blissfull pee.

Re:Google+ (1)

Deep Esophagus (686515) | more than 3 years ago | (#37079208)

Not everyone uses social networking for that purpose. There are family and friends that are interested in changes to one another's health, jobs, interesting activities we've been pursuing, etc. Rather than individually email or phone 50 to 100 people to tell them my daughter's cat ran away or my son graduated from arrrrrrrmy training sir, I can post that on Facebook while limiting the availability of that information to a whitelist of known friends. I'm not seeking popularity any more than I tried to be "popular" by calling these same friends up on the phone -- remember when phones were used as a primitive voice chat interface? -- and asking them how they're doing. I share this information, and read theirs, because we care about one another.

And yes, I have my birthday and anniversary listed there; it's a conscious decision to find safe middle ground between absolute privacy and absolute isolation from the world. I frequently recheck my security settings to make sure FB hasn't decided to arbitrarily give my private data to some new third party and expect me to opt out, I do limit the exposure of that data to friends only, I *only* accept friend requests from people I personally know (with all but three or four, people I have met in the flesh), and I never ever play any game or other FB app because they all require you to expose your privates before you can play them.

With that in mind, I wouldn't even go so far as to say Facebook's implementation of social networking is flawed; it's the way most people use Facebook that is flawed. If everyone kept a tight rein on their data and never played those stupid privacy-defeating games and only shared relevant news with actual known friends, FB would be as safe as... well, as Slashdot. Of course, if everyone did that FB's profits would tank and they'd either shut down or find some new intrusive means of getting our data to advertisers, so I guess the stupid people fund the free access for the smart ones.

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37072464)

If it were just a mining platform nobody would volunteer to use the service. Thus, many millions of people have proven your theory wrong. Like it or not, people want to share what's going on in their lives, and most of us have mild voyeuristic tendencies. There's nothing bizarre or wrong with that on the users' part. But that stands alone from a bigger point... it would be wrong for FB to secretly take advantage at anyones expense. Though fortunately, I don't see a lot of real evidence that they are. But please, offer up information to the contrary. I'd be interested to see anything new.

Re:Google+ (1)

oldredlion (1663421) | more than 3 years ago | (#37072272)

Social people get more from a social network than Anti-Social people. Who'd a thought it!

Re:Google+ (3, Funny)

Fuji Kitakyusho (847520) | more than 3 years ago | (#37072486)

I'm not anti-social, I'm just misanthropic.

Re:Google+ (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#37072884)

I'm far from anti-social...

Apparently, according to the article, I just have extremely HIGH self-esteem!!!

Apparently that allows you to have privacy, and stay in contact with friends quite easily, like I've always done in the past.

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37072534)

Is that what we're calling them these days?

Anyway, I feel extroverts will tend to favor social networks with their breadth over depth approach to relationships. Introverts with their depth over breadth approach might find the connections of social networks too shallow to bother with at all.

My girlfriend (definitely an introvert) just shrugs at social networking, and "doesn't get the point". Now when I quit facebook I had a fairly long friend list, but I got board of the broadcasting approach to communication. Certain people don't feel the need to re-discuss personally what they had already broadcast on social media, and that just isn't a good match of friend for me. I get pissed with people yelling and never listening, and I want to listen in return, but to communication directed AT me. I DENY attention whores a platform with which to reach me.

Controversial opinion, so posting AC.

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37073280)

I usually think of myself as an introvert, but I guess I AM just a misanthrope. I don't want broad relationships with a lot of people, and I don't even really want the relationships I do have to be that deep. I like having a few people around who I know I can reliably hang out with and talk to, but I'm not that interested in sharing the deepest parts of my self with anyone.

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37073562)

People with Narcissistic personality disorder get more from them.

Re:Google+ (1)

zget (2395308) | more than 3 years ago | (#37074212)

Narcism isn't a personality disorder. There are many good things it brings to a person. You could just as well say that anyone with good self-esteem is narcistic. People seem to make up "disorders" for every kind of behavior nowadays..

Re:Google+ (2)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#37072490)

Google+ users have so much self esteem they don't even sign up.

Re:Google+ (1)

RKBA (622932) | more than 3 years ago | (#37073668)

Exactly. I began the sign up procedure but stopped when it got to the point of asking for my real name (or something else personal, I forget).

Re:Google+ (1)

fermat1313 (927331) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075312)

Exactly. I began the sign up procedure but stopped when it got to the point of asking for my real name (or something else personal, I forget).

Not sure why you're so worried about protecting your real name, Ron, considering you link straight from your Slashdot profile to your personal website with your name and photo. Are you really that concerned about your privacy, or is this just privacy theater?

Re:Google+ (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075602)

He wants to hide from people dumb enough to think that's someone else because the name doesn't match.

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37077388)

I deactivated my Facebook profile a few days ago. I deactivated a year or so ago, but eventually returned. To be thorough this time, I unfriended everybody, detagged myself in every photo, and deleted all my albums.

I still find myself opening a browser window and habitually typing facebook.com, just to check in on my friends and acquaintances and see what they're up to. Realizing this is no longer an option, I head over to Google+, but none of my friends (of the few actually on G+) have posted anything there. And I find myself longing for Facebook and all its overshares, provocative photos, and women.

Makes sense (1)

DemonGenius (2247652) | more than 3 years ago | (#37072232)

The study also found that those with higher self-esteem are more likely to protect their personal information.

Pretty much sums up the driving force behind social networking. Give people a reason to actually like themselves in society and not feel like they have to be attention whores 24/7 and privacy becomes much less of an issue in the context of these sites.

Re:Makes sense (0)

AJH16 (940784) | more than 3 years ago | (#37072926)

I find this interesting as I subscribe to the exact opposite thought process. I am an extremely confident individual who has almost no feeling of need to justify myself to others. I could care less about what people that I don't care about think of me and I don't really care to be close to people who don't like me (though I do try to be likeable as I don't want to intentionally upset people). I could care less what people know about me and have no issue with info about me being public information. I'd rather the information be out there for people who want to find it than not have it available for people who need to find it. I don't obsess over posting every detail of my life, but I also see no reason to conceal details of my life that I do feel like commenting on.

Re:Makes sense (2)

Spectre (1685) | more than 3 years ago | (#37073230)

I find this interesting as I subscribe to the exact opposite thought process. I am an extremely confident individual who has almost no feeling of need to justify myself to others. I could care less about what people that I don't care about think of me and I don't really care to be close to people who don't like me (though I do try to be likeable as I don't want to intentionally upset people). I could care less what people know about me and have no issue with info about me being public information. I'd rather the information be out there for people who want to find it than not have it available for people who need to find it. I don't obsess over posting every detail of my life, but I also see no reason to conceal details of my life that I do feel like commenting on.

You seem to talk about yourself a lot.

Re:Makes sense (0)

AJH16 (940784) | more than 3 years ago | (#37073588)

Not sure if that is making a joke or simply trying to over-summarize my post. I don't think I like to talk about myself a lot as I don't post much other than details on contact and hobbies and activities. My facebook gets updated maybe once a month, if that. I just wanted to present an outliers view relevant to the previous posters comment that for people, their confidence actually makes it so privacy isn't a big deal and isn't something to be valued (or the point at which they view things as private may be much more personal as they are more comfortable with their life.)

Personally, based on the study results, my full assessment would be that there is actually a fairly standard distribution of how much people value privacy regardless of self confidence and that a lack of self confidence will make someone more willing to compromise their comfort to seek acceptance. ie, some people are going to post information that others would consider private regardless and at the very high end of confidence this might even be boosted (bloggers for example). Some are not going to be comfortable revealing private details but some of those will feel pressured in to doing it for acceptance. This is something we have known about people with low self confidence for decades. I don't really see it as all that big of a news flash.

Re:Makes sense (1)

DemonGenius (2247652) | more than 3 years ago | (#37073410)

Doesn't that just mean you're a statistical outlier in the context of this study? This is a trend, not a mathematical equation. One contradicting piece of data doesn't disprove a trend, whereas in math, one contradicting piece of data can disprove a whole equation.

Re:Makes sense (1)

AJH16 (940784) | more than 3 years ago | (#37073490)

Yeah, I was not faulting the study, I was just commenting on the assessment of the previous commenter that if people had confidence they wouldn't have a reason to put their personal information out there. That said I guess we were also kind of talking about different things as he seems to have more issues with spilling a life play by play instead simply exposing personal details. I was also trying to offer a counterpoint to show a rationale of outliers on the edge of the curve even if it is non-standard.

Re:Makes sense (1)

DemonGenius (2247652) | more than 3 years ago | (#37074176)

I believe I said (with added emphasis):

Give people a reason to actually like themselves in society and not feel like they have to be attention whores 24/7 and privacy becomes much less of an issue in the context of these sites.

The argument was not:

... if people had confidence they wouldn't have a reason to put their personal information out there.

If you want to argue on whether or not privacy becomes less of an issue with increased self-esteem, go nuts. But don't argue on something you conjured up yourself and say that's countering my point. You're interpreting my words as you want to see them, rather than trying to understand what I was trying to say in the first place.

Social networking isn't going away whether people like themselves or not. However, when people allow themselves to be slaves to how society views them, they may weigh their popularity over any concerns of privacy. When you're confident enough to not care much about how society views you, then you leave your mind freer to prioritize over other things such as privacy.

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37074476)

Ok then I actually think we are saying almost the same thing actually. Sorry about the misunderstanding. The only bit I would change is saying that confidence reduces or eliminates pressure to give up popularity but our views are much closer than I first thought from how I had read it.

Re:Makes sense (1)

AJH16 (940784) | more than 3 years ago | (#37079626)

Oh, I tried to post this too, but my phone died on me. The way I actually ended up reading your post, I thought you were saying is that if we as a society learned to value ourselves (individually more), then privacy issues would be less common on the sites. I was reading it as a societal thing instead of an individual priority to decision making, but your follow up made it much more clear.

Re:Makes sense (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 3 years ago | (#37074998)

I am an extremely confident individual who has almost no feeling of need to justify myself to others. I could care less about what people that I don't care about think of me...

Hmmm. A confident individual who has no clue how foolish he looks to others, or do you really mean you could care less about what others think about you? If the latter, I apologize.

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37077862)

I think "I could care less" is an Americanism and actually means the opposite in their heads. Who needs semantics, eh? Just a pointless bunch of rules designed to facilitate communication, although I'm pretty sure people who actually say what they mean have an advantage in any social context.

Re:Makes sense (1)

AJH16 (940784) | more than 3 years ago | (#37079690)

I actually mean that I could care less what other people think. My valuation of myself comes from what I value, not what others value about me. The only way I care about what someone thinks is if they are close enough to me that I have given their opinion of me value. I am not unaware of what people think of me, but it doesn't define me and if they don't like me and I don't feel that their is justification to what they think myself, it won't bother me. Confidence allows someone to be more reliant on what they think of themselves and less reliant on what others think. This either makes them leaders (people who do what they do for themselves but value others) or arrogant assholes (who tromp through life not caring who they hurt because they see themselves as superior.) No matter how confident you are (atleast in my experience) you still need people close to you that you have to value what they think, but that I let what most people think about me bother me. I consider it, and evaluate for myself if I should change my behavior based on it, but it exert influence beyond my own desire to not be an ass.

How do I fit in this scenario? (2)

taiwanjohn (103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#37072278)

I use Facebook daily, but I only have minimal ID info in my profile. I don't play any FB games or take any FB quizzes... basically anything that wants to access my personal info is routinely blocked. I treat FB more like a blog, I post links to some things I'm reading, and occasionally "like" or comment on friends' posts.

How "safe" (or un-) am I if I follow these rules?

Re:How do I fit in this scenario? (1)

waddgodd (34934) | more than 3 years ago | (#37072412)

You fit in as a leech. And just like leeches, you're as safe, (or unsafe) as the hosts, the ones who share content with you

Re: (1)

taiwanjohn (103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#37073238)

Define leech. A leech's safety is not dependent on the host. Even if the host dies, the leech can simply find a new host.

I don't publish info on FB that doesn't already exist in the phone book. I'm not in a position to worry much about photos. I've restricted my privacy settings to "friends only" for most things (not friends of friends).

The only thing I'm worried about is the "Truth Game," which allows my "friends" to answer questions about me. I never "opted-in" to this system, but my "friends" are still allowed to comment on me without my permission. I reckon my "friends" aren't saying anything catastrophic, but I'd rather not participate at all. But thus far I have not found any way to opt-out. This is the sort of thing that makes me doubt the safety of Facebook.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37073478)

The two times that has happened, I've posted to my friend's wall and given them an earful about the fact that I in no way participate with the game and that I'm offended that they would just betray my confidence to a marketing agency like that. They both stopped the game shortly thereafter, and they still talk to me! (One even apologized.)

(Yep...posting as AC, even here)

Re: (1)

Deep Esophagus (686515) | more than 3 years ago | (#37079272)

That game (and many others like it) is a meme virus, and it exists *solely* for the purpose of getting access to your personal data. The questions themselves aren't at all revealing -- "what is taiwanjohn's favorite color?" "did taiwanjohn take a bath today?" (I'm not kidding, I saw that one come up when I first thought those were real questions with real answers, and allowed the stupid app to access my data so I could read the answers). The point of the exercise is that you don't KNOW what question your friends answered about you unless you follow the bazillion click-throughs to "unlock" their answers, which of course gives the app full license to run rampant across your privacy. If you're gullible enough to do that, you'll also likely obey its demands that you answer an equally meaningless question about one of your friends, just so it can post the bait on their page ("taiwanjohn answered a question about deepesophagus! click here to unlock taiwanjohn's answer!") and the cycle begins anew.

That said, I haven't dared to unlock answers and look at what the app is encouraging people to answer about me in a few years. For all I know they have stopped bothering with innocuous questions and now come right out and ask: "What is taiwanjohn's birthday?" "what was deepesophagus' mother's maiden name?"

Re: (1)

coolmadsi (823103) | more than 3 years ago | (#37092036)

The only thing I'm worried about is the "Truth Game," which allows my "friends" to answer questions about me. I never "opted-in" to this system, but my "friends" are still allowed to comment on me without my permission. I reckon my "friends" aren't saying anything catastrophic, but I'd rather not participate at all. But thus far I have not found any way to opt-out. This is the sort of thing that makes me doubt the safety of Facebook.

Have you tried turning off platform apps (i.e. turn off all platform apps)? If you have it off, I believe that your friends applications will not have access to your name at all, so they will not be able to invite you to anything, or answer a question about you, as you will not appear in the list of friends that the application has access to (I think turning off platform apps prevents all applications from having any of your information - including your friends apps). I have them turned off, and do not remember having any question being answered about me (but have seen the type of app you are talking about on other friends walls).

Re:How do I fit in this scenario? (1)

Fuji Kitakyusho (847520) | more than 3 years ago | (#37073014)

Well, having a profile at all means that you are subject to Facebook's terms of service, which is not only subject to change at any time, but currently grants them the right to the information that you do post - at mininum, that comprises a map of your associations, which could easily find itself in the hands of government or law enforcement agencies should they have use for it, since you signed away the rights to this information when you signed up. By your own admission, you post about the books that you read, which happens to be a very useful resource for establishing your psychological profile and your political leanings. Facebook also has rights to the images that you post, and your posts to the site not only establish your frequency of use (another behavioural indicator), but can establish patterns of behaviour - for example, times that you are most likely to be at your computer or away from home. The Facebook terms of service provide for indefinite preservation of anything you have posted to the site since you signed up, so even the things that you choose to delete from your profile indicate the extent of your privacy savvy, or the subjects, photos, etc. which you may find embarrassing or otherwise inappropriate for public consumption. Games and quizzes only make it easier for Facebook to share your data with third parties - they have no bearing on Facebook itself, and even the limited information presented above constitutes a valuable package. You may wish to consider whether handing over, without compensation of any kind, that sort of information to a company whos CEO famously declared that privacy is an "outdated concept", is a particularly wise decision.

Re:How do I fit in this scenario? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37073564)

Well, having a profile at all means that you are subject to Facebook's terms of service, which is not only subject to change at any time,

I know all the corporations are doing it, but having terms of service that can change at any time takes a hell of a lot of balls. Here, not only don't you get to negotiate on any of these points, but if any of them becomes inconvenient to ME I'll change the agreement at a moments notice. Oh, and if any of them inconvenience YOU, well tough luck.

Re:How do I fit in this scenario? (1)

Deep Esophagus (686515) | more than 3 years ago | (#37079288)

I'd be fascinated to learn what they can glean about my political leanings from my preference for Terry Pratchett, Jasper Fforde and the like. Of course they don't really need to look that far; they only need to see on my personal info page under political preferences where I flat-out say "They are all lying weasels."

Aaaaaaaand (5, Insightful)

JustinFreid (1723716) | more than 3 years ago | (#37072294)

Those with no Facebook profile have the highest self esteem.

Re:Aaaaaaaand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37073050)

I don't have high self esteem. I just don't want all these women to know that I'm dating other women.

Re:Aaaaaaaand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37073616)

...or just have no friends. Or too many enemies.

Or no friends. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37079116)

n/t

Trusting privacy to someone else (1)

Ironchew (1069966) | more than 3 years ago | (#37072296)

Everything on the internet is public data unless you make sure your own data is secured. While I don't feel the need to post anything and everything to social media sites, I certainly wouldn't trust any sensitive information in the hands of others under the guise of "privacy settings".

no facebook peoples and the self esteem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37072304)

"those with higher self-esteem are more likely to protect their personal information"

What does that say about peoples who never signed up for a facebook account because of the blatant privacy violations and selling of personal data to the sorts of advertisers and data miners who have ruined the internet?

Contrary to popular belief, the internet has *ways to communicate with your friends* that don't involve using facebook. Really. It does.

Slow Privacy Erosion (1)

mfh (56) | more than 3 years ago | (#37072306)

Privacy erosion is slow. What you do wrong today you might not notice until five years from now when you're applying for a job, or trying to get a mortgage or trying to get married. Shit you put on Facebook is the permanent record that your high-school guidance counselor warned you about.

People surrender their freedom every day when they go to work. Why wouldn't they then ALSO surrender their freedom when they are goofing off at work?

Re:Slow Privacy Erosion (1)

scottbomb (1290580) | more than 3 years ago | (#37072686)

This is the bullshit myth that never seems to die. Anyone who's been on FB for longer than 5 min. knows who can see what and how to adjust their settings. I have my settings such that only friends and relatives can see my posts and details. NO ONE ELSE CAN SEE THIS unless I grant them that permission.

Re:Slow Privacy Erosion (1)

scottbomb (1290580) | more than 3 years ago | (#37072880)

Apologies for the harsh tone. I just get so tired of people being paranoid about FB vs. their privacy.

wrong (1)

Fuji Kitakyusho (847520) | more than 3 years ago | (#37073126)

Just to provide a single obvious example, Mark Zuckerberg can look at your posts anytime he wants.

Re:Slow Privacy Erosion (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#37073170)

...or until Facebook rolls out a new "feature" that makes that info public by default.

Even if you're smart enough to keep your info protected, most users aren't.

Re:Slow Privacy Erosion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37074180)

Test you theory. post your facebook contact info on slashdot, and see if "NO ONE ELSE CAN SEE". Maybe you might be surprised to find what people can find about you even with your privacy settings. if you feel its a bullshit myth as you put it, you should be just fine then. so go ahead, post and test...

Look, I don't post personal stuff on Facebook (0)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 3 years ago | (#37072322)

Hah! I laugh at people with their fragile egos.

I don't have to go trawling for plaudits on Facebook because my IQ is certified 150, my wife is a cardiologist with huge boobs, and everyone at my work says I'm the smartest and funniest guy they've ever met!

Also, my penis? Enormous.

Re:Look, I don't post personal stuff on Facebook (1)

Fuji Kitakyusho (847520) | more than 3 years ago | (#37072566)

I wonder if there has ever been a study correlating social networking use with narcissistic personality disorder? (I'm not narcissistic, I just have a very high level of self-efficacy.)

Re:Look, I don't post personal stuff on Facebook (1)

Ironchew (1069966) | more than 3 years ago | (#37072576)

A regular on Slashdot too, I see ;)

Good to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37072328)

As long as I'm not popular, I'm less likely to be the victim of stalking and identity theft!

Re:Good to know (1)

Fuji Kitakyusho (847520) | more than 3 years ago | (#37073222)

Not to worry - you're significantly more popular now that I stole your credit cards and used them to pay the stalkers that are now surrounding your house.

It's meaningless (0, Troll)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 3 years ago | (#37072346)

There is no more privacy. It's a concept from the last century. It no longer exists. Once you realize this, it doesn't matter what your Facebook privacy setting are.

Re:It's meaningless (2)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#37072818)

I agree with you, that the concept of privacy for our day to day actions is dead. However, until the rest of the world catches up in a moral and ethical sense, it still pays to put the effort into keeping things you want private to be private.

Should it really matter to my boss if I sleep around/get hammered/love comic books? No, but there are enough self appointed moral guardians and just general 'holier than thou' (and the nearly bad 'cooler than thou') that posting any of those things can damage your career. Until society realizes that any non-harmful behavior should, by default be acceptable it's best if you do your best, even if it won't be 100% effective, to hide the inane details of your life as much as possible.

Re:It's meaningless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37072922)

WTF does it mean "It's a concept from the last century"?

You Sir, have been digested by the system.

Re:It's meaningless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37073056)

If privacy is gone, it's because people like you killed it.

Re:It's meaningless (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#37073190)

So, you drank Zuckerberg's kool-aid...

In other news... (0)

CCarrot (1562079) | more than 3 years ago | (#37072358)

Water is wet!

Film at 11.

Extrapolation of results: If you're not on FB at all, you either have immense self esteem or you crave rejection? Or, you know, you have RL friends to interact with, ones who already know the important things about you, and you them...

Duh... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37072434)

Thanks for the newsflash professor obvious!

That's me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37072676)

I don't care about privacy in the classical sense. To me, privacy is being able to prohibit certain people from contacting me. No phone calls I don't want, no mail I don't want, no ads I don't want. As long as others can't waste my time and energy, I don't care what they know.

this is true of social psychology, not technology (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#37072740)

people who open up the personal details of their life will have richer social lives. those who clam up will have no social life. completely true

the problem is when you inject technology into this basic social truth. now, when you open up, you aren't sharing with people who might become your friends, you are sharing with a database and a piece of algorithm optimized to extract money from you, and perhaps government interested in profiling you, and a whole manner of ways that your personal information can be used in completely impersonal ways that a bunch of people are busy furiously inventing

so an invitation to a social life, with technology as the interface, is now an invitation to have your personal life defiled and raped. by which i mean, there is nothing personal about your life anymore at all

therefore, it is wise to clam up, when technology is the interface in which this social process is happening

in traditional real world social interaction, it is still wiser to open up

Re:this is true of social psychology, not technolo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37072762)

You could make a movie about socially interacting zombies. That would be great.

Re:this is true of social psychology, not technolo (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#37072826)

just so you know, i don't want you disappointing me, i'm depending on you

in 20 years, i still want you attaching these comments to mine on slashdot

don't you dare fail me! i need you!

Shocking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37072790)

If you don't let people post on your page, or give them things to post about, they won't post on your page... Amazing research!

They are called Politicians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37072908)

One group that values popularity over privacy are Politicians. No news here.

The only winning move (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37073108)

...is not to play.

Facebook 101 (2)

v(*_*)vvvv (233078) | more than 3 years ago | (#37073118)

From the conclusion:

"Self-esteem increases with age, and those with a higher self-esteem are more likely to protect their personal information".

So it says those "are more likely" but not that "self-esteem causes". In other words, this sentence is made to sound like there is a connection, but avoids claiming there is a causal one. It is only saying "with age people are more private". Well, that directly contradicts "kids and adults are similar."

Secondly, this is an online survey. What kind of online user fills out online surveys these days anyway? Did they enter thinking they'd "win" a free iPad? Savvy adults rarely do surveys, or facebook surveys for that matter.

Thirdly, the study doesn't consider the subject's understanding of facebook, the default settings or how to change settings on facebook. Do they know their faces appear on sites they Like if the sites adds a facebook widget? Or that Everyone can see their friends and photos by default? Or how facebook shares their information?

This study SUCKS.

News at 11 (1)

Johnny Mnemonic (176043) | more than 3 years ago | (#37073154)


This is why Google+ will fail. FB understands this, Google doesn't. And I don't think most folks on Slashdot, do, either.

Really, Facebook is a more of a female social vehicle. If you're not female, I think you'll have trouble getting it. Women, as a general rule, are a lot less private than men.

Frankly--I don't get it, mostly. I work at Facebook. I was leery of the job offer. Then I realized that my wife spends all damn day on Facebook. And that there are lot more women in the world like her than there are men in the world like me. I don't care for people to know things about me, and if someone knows my birthday I wonder why they care. However, my wife wants to share. The more people that know more about her, the better.

The fact that FB was created by a (male) borderline Aspie geek is ironic, but has probably led to the deconstruction of FB privacy barriers too--he just doesn't understand why people would feel like they need to be private. And in the internet age, he has a point--there isn't much privacy left anyways, like it or not. G+ knew things about me that I hadn't explicitly told it, like which cities I've lived in over the last 10 years. At least FB only knows things that you have chosen to share of your own will.

Re:News at 11 (1)

Fuji Kitakyusho (847520) | more than 3 years ago | (#37073300)

If I was the world's youngest billionaire, I'd probably feel better about sharing the details of my life too.

Re:News at 11 (1)

Slash.research_Kat (2195516) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075460)

Agreed that FB is a social vehicle, it's used by extroverts of both genders. They tend to enjoy social attention more than introverts. Maybe G+ would be better suited for those who are less extroverted and wants to post things without turning them into social chatter, which FB seems to be pretty good at.

Re:News at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37076002)

G+ knew which cities in the last 10 years because they imported it from your Google Profile, where you listed where you had lived.

Yes sir! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37073258)

"Social Psychological and Personality Science found that adults have almost as much need for being popular on Facebook as teenagers do"

Doesnt this speak volumes on the direction our society is heading? One big fing popularity contest. Idiocracy here we come.

Which Popularity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37073378)

Should I give around all my data to be more popular among my ~300 FB friends? The ones who should know those data already know it and I meed them in person or write them emails or chat in Skype. Occasional status updates, pictures and comments are enough for the other ones (the outer circle). Who cares if I won't be any more popular than this among them.

If they were 30,000... well I'll have a public relationship assistant taking care of them but I'll be a very different person, so it's not worth thinking about it.

Pseudonyms (1)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 3 years ago | (#37073530)

This is why pseudonyms are good. I never post anything on Facebook because i care about my privacy. One sites where i can mask my public presence with a pseudonym i post quite a lot of stuff. I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon and say "people who give up their privacy so they can try to be popular on Facebook" are losers, i just think there's no good reason why we can't have the options of choosing both privacy _and_ popularity/posting.

ATTENTION WHORES (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37073596)

ATTENTION WHORES EVERYWHERE!

America - home of the voyeur (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37073726)

Facebook... public stupidity at its best

They've got it backwards (1)

cwiegmann24 (1476667) | more than 3 years ago | (#37073732)

There's some people in the world who crave acceptance because, to be honest, they're socially awkward. They seem to lack certain social skills that others take for granted. Those people are the ones who feel the need to post about everything they do, where they are, etc. I know some of these people, and they're a pain in the butt to see on your facebook news feed, because they dominate it. Seeing all of those posts makes you want to de-friend them, or at least block their posts from your feed. Thus the person feels neglected, which causes them to seek more attention, creating more posts about stuff no one cares about. It is a cycle of social ineptitude, and that is the cause behind this study's findings.

This hits close to home (1)

pokerdad (1124121) | more than 3 years ago | (#37073852)

I must admit I feel very lonely watching all my friends get scores of birthday wishes every year, and I get one (from my wife, who I then scold because she knows I purposefully hide my birthday on FB) Not only do I get very jealous, but seeing as about half my friends are either in IT or engineering and none of them seem to think twice about having their birthday be public, makes me wonder if my fears of a public birthday are misplaced.

Re:This hits close to home (1)

SemperUbi (673908) | more than 3 years ago | (#37074762)

Not at all. No way would I ever put my real birthday on a website; too tempting for identity thieves.

Re:This hits close to home (1)

Rinnon (1474161) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075372)

You won't think that way at all when one of your friends becomes a victim of identity theft. The single most common thing to be asked to verify your identity is your date of birth. Be glad you keep it under wraps.

Re:This hits close to home (1)

Slash.research_Kat (2195516) | more than 3 years ago | (#37075754)

you could post a fake birthday :)

Re:This hits close to home (1)

coolmadsi (823103) | more than 3 years ago | (#37092106)

you could post a fake birthday :)

I remember a friend of mine changed his birthday on Facebook, sometime in March I think.

Come April 1st he had a lot of people wishing him happy birthday, and he had a good laugh (I was a little bemused as I remembered his birthday from a few months before, until I realsed what the date was)

One interesting thing to take from that is that there are people on Facebook who will just check whose birthdays Facebook is saying it is and send a message, regardless of if they have spoken to them at all recently (or since their last birthday message), and regardless of whether it is actually their birthday or not.

I use social networks, and don't let them use me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37074548)

I use social networks to promote myself, with minimal information and lots of links to my web site. I give them less data about myself than I put on my web site. Who's using who?

FB is a waste of time for Actualizers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37074880)

FB is a waste of time for Actualizers.

I got cajoled into joining FB several years ago, and started right away posting my original content (photos, short stories, etc.) and hooked up with some long lost acquaintances which was fun, but nobody else was posting original content, apparently FB users are considerably more interested in youtube links and banal jokes than anything I posted so I left the wasteland that is FB.

Same with forums (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37075558)

Anonymous posters have the highest self-esteem and the lowest need to feel popular. The epitome of this is of course 4chan. Many stable, confident people there.

btw. default AC postings obviously need to be set at +4

Once again I'm proven correct: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37076338)

Once again what I've been saying for years is proven correct: When it comes right down to it, humans are all just slightly smarter animals, and no more. We're all ruled by our instincts and hormones, not our so-called higher brain functions, and herd instinct wins out over critical and logical thinking almost every single time. You want to know why alien civilizations haven't contacted us or revealed their presence to us? Because they don't want to associate with primitives like us -- and I don't blame them for an instant. Luckily some of us see that maintaining a private life does indeed have intrinsic value, and that being "popular" and having a metric assload of "friends" (read as: COMPLETE STRANGERS) is incredibly highly overrated. Don't mind me; I'll be over here, maintaining my online anonymity and privacy, while the vast majority of you rediculous primates give your entire useless lives away to the corporations for FREE.

Not news to some (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37076822)

What? Facebook pandering to the insecure? You don't say...

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?