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 Makes Privacy Settings More Obvious

Unknown Lamer posted more than 3 years ago | from the false-sense-of-security dept.

Privacy 88

CWmike writes "Facebook is making a series of design changes to the site to make it clearer to users who can see the content that they post, an issue Google has been criticizing Facebook about since it launched its own social network, Google+, in June. 'You have told us that "who can see this?" could be clearer across Facebook, so we have made changes to make this more visual and straightforward,' Facebook said in a blog post on Tuesday. The main change is that Facebook will now display the intended audience for a photo, a text post, a tag or any other piece of content right next to it. Until now, those controls have been on a separate Settings section of the profile. 'Your profile should feel like your home on the web — you should never feel like stuff appears there that you don't want, and you should never wonder who sees what's there.' Another change Facebook is introducing is allowing users to modify the audience of a post after it's published, which they couldn't do before."

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

Photocopiers to the ready. (3, Funny)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#37184654)

Is it me, or both Google and Facebook copying each other. G+ has animated GIFs, now Facebook has etc. Now this.

Re:Photocopiers to the ready. (2)

ge7 (2194648) | more than 3 years ago | (#37184678)

It just shows that competition is good. Facebook has pretty much added all the features people criticized them lacking. It will be hard time for Google+ now.

Re:Photocopiers to the ready. (2)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 3 years ago | (#37184994)

Added it back is more like it. A while back (think a year +), you used to be able to change the viewing audience after you posted something, and then that dissapeared a few months ago. You then had to remember to set it when you posted it, or you either had to delete it or live with it.

I agree though, competition is good. I seriously doubt Facebook has done a good implementation though. For instance, you can setup different levels of who can see what, and all it takes is someone from a restricted list posting a link to something that was 'restricted' to them only, and suddenly anyone can see it.

I find their lack of security disturbing... (sorry, couldn't resist...).

Can't speak to Google + as of yet. Haven't seen any activity on there to speak of. It's pretty much dead. Of the two I actually prefer the cleaners of Google + but I suspect my locked down settings are making it difficult for people to find me. Not sure I want to open that up either.

MORE OBVIOUS (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185064)

As in, "It is OBVIOUS that you've been HAD!" ;-)

You are, as always, private from each other, but not from Facebook, nor private in any meaningful sense from those with whom Facebook does business.

Just say, "No, I'm not on Facebook."

Re:MORE OBVIOUS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37185610)

Sorry but I would much rather trust Facebook than Google.

Re:MORE OBVIOUS (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186242)

> Sorry but I would much rather trust Facebook than Google.

Pity, that.

Both are in no position to engender your trust - which runs contrary to their acquiring revenues.

And what would either do, should STASI^H^H^H^H NSA come, with a request?

Re:MORE OBVIOUS (1)

bhartman34 (886109) | more than 3 years ago | (#37199714)

Sorry but I would much rather trust Facebook than Google.

On what possible basis? Facebook's developers have made a hobby of obscuring its privacy settings. Each new "clarification" just makes things worse. And worse than that, the apps they allow on the site rape your personal information, and that of your friends/family/acquaintances. Someone, someday, might manage to be less trustworthy than Facebook, but they'd basically have to show up at your house with a gun and ransack the place. All Facebook has done to improve the situation is write a blog post to make old news seem like something new.

Re:Photocopiers to the ready. (2)

Inda (580031) | more than 3 years ago | (#37188744)

After a month, I thought G+ was dead too. Then I started playing one of the games.

In little under a week, I gone from having a dozen contacts to just over 150. The chatter is mainly about games, obviously, but there is no way in the world I can claim G+ is dead. If anything, I'm trying to find ways to stop people posting lol-cats on my main stream.

Still early days. Give G+ a bit more time.

Re:Photocopiers to the ready. (1)

bhartman34 (886109) | more than 3 years ago | (#37199738)

Stopping the lolcats madness is easy, I think. Just create a Lolcat circle and dump those people there, or uncircle them altogether. :)

Re:Photocopiers to the ready. (2, Insightful)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185222)

It seems Facebook has realized that Google has dropped the ball on privacy with that real name fiasco. Which seems to be getting even worse. Today when logging into Google+ I got this:

Hey, this is important: Add a phone to your account Without a
phone number, you could lose all access to your account if you
forget your password or if your account is hijacked. Learn more
[Phone number (mobile or landline)]

Google will only use your number for account security. We'll
never share it with other companies or send you unwanted
messages--ever. Adding a phone number helps make your
account much more secure.

In very small font below: "Click _here_ to skip this step anyway."

So now they are even trying to extract my phone number from me. Geez.

Initially the attraction was: well it's like Facebook, but not run by hated corporation Facebook. By now Facebook can say: "Well, we may have our flaws, but at least we are not Google".

Re:Photocopiers to the ready. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37185734)

Tinfoil hat much? I don't think the intent of having the phone number could be any more black and white.

Re:Photocopiers to the ready. (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186016)

Majority of phone numbers are in the public domain anyway. Heard of a phone book?

Re:Photocopiers to the ready. (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 3 years ago | (#37188340)

A phone book doesn't tie your phone number and address to your social networking account.

Re:Photocopiers to the ready. (1)

bhartman34 (886109) | more than 3 years ago | (#37199758)

But if your phone number is listed in the phone book, anyone with an IQ above freezing (Celsius) can get your phone number from Google (or Bing, or Yahoo) trivially, without you ever having seen Google+.

Re:Photocopiers to the ready. (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260212)

Yes. I've heard of a phone book. They taught us about them in history class.

Weren't these even commonplace, in the previous century?

Re:Photocopiers to the ready. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37188282)

Yahoo has been asking for a phone number to associate with accounts long before that.

Craigslist has been asking for phone verification before that.

This isn't new. It's just following the trend.

Re:Photocopiers to the ready. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37194150)

Oh, that makes it ok then. Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:Photocopiers to the ready. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37194910)

On a similar note, I've noticed just about every business these days requires a credit check. Now, one sure way to ruin your credit is to perform lots of credit checks - because apparently applying for credit means you are less likely to pay your debts. So my response to these companies is FRO - I am paying you X for service Y. If I stop paying you X, simply stop providing Y. No credit check, no muss, no fuss. This is seemingly a hard concept for these companies to grasp.

The point being, simply doing something because others do it was NEVER a good reason for doing anything, but people seem to be forgetting that.

Re:Photocopiers to the ready. (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#37188698)

I do believe Facebook does that (or at least did that) too. I've also seen that pop-up on other google services too. (No google+ as of yet though, seems it's still in beta)

Re:Photocopiers to the ready. (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#37192438)

It seems Facebook has realized that Google has dropped the ball on privacy with that real name fiasco. Which seems to be getting even worse. Today when logging into Google+ I got this:

It's not a new requirement. It's actually a Google Account requirement. It's so if your account gets locked out, there are alternate ways to contact you to unlock your account.

Here, Google wants your cellphone number so they can text you a password to recover your account.

It applies to all Google accounts - Gmail, Apps, Android Market, YouTube, and G+.

The biggest problem I have with G+ is well, Google is aggregating a bit TOO much information. At least Facebook's walled garden means the information they sell is whatever you put on Facebook and whatever you use your Facebook login for.

With Google, the information they have is far more - your gmail, your apps, your docs, your google accoutn logins, youtube videos, web searches, etc. Plus Google owns doubleclick and has their text ads, so really, Google knows far more about you than what you've willingly given it. And don't forget apps - Android and some iPhone apps use AdMob - owned by Google.

Facebook knows what I voluntarily gave it. Google knows what I voluntarily gate it on G+, and what I involulntarily gave it on everything else.

Re:Photocopiers to the ready. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37185564)

It just shows that competition is good.

Yes, and thank God none of them patented any of this stuff.

Re:Photocopiers to the ready. (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185674)

Competing with each other is another way of putting it. Making stuff private is not exactly "copying" each other so much as it is "giving customers what they want."

Home on the Web? (4, Insightful)

ksd1337 (1029386) | more than 3 years ago | (#37184676)

Your profile should feel like your home on the web

Um, no. A Facebook profile feels like a cheap apartment. They all look the same, feel the same, and even smell the same (okay, that last one, I don't know what I'm talking about.)

A personal website, on the other hand, now THAT feels like my home on the Web.

Re:Home on the Web? (1)

TWX (665546) | more than 3 years ago | (#37184704)

For me, a home is where I spend much of my time. I don't see how a personal website or a profile page would be home to me- it'd be more accurate to say that Slashdot or some other site used day in, day out would be my "home"...

Hell, for that logic, "www.google.com" is my home.

Re:Home on the Web? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37184826)

For me, a home is where I spend much of my time.

I spend most of my time at work.

Re:Home on the Web? (1)

Altus (1034) | more than 3 years ago | (#37184836)

Really? Even including the time you spend asleep?

Your either sleeping too little or working too much :-)

Re:Home on the Web? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37184914)

Really? Even including the time you spend asleep?

Your either sleeping too little or working too much :-)

For me it usually goes something like:
Sleeping 7 hours (sidenote, research show that more than 6 hours sleep is bad for you, you will live shorter)
Working: 9 hours
Left: 8 hours

Work wins, make sure you do something you like

Re:Home on the Web? (1)

Ragzouken (943900) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185258)

What research?

Re:Home on the Web? (1)

said213 (72685) | more than 3 years ago | (#37190302)

"by Anonymous Coward"

you can filter them out, right?

Re:Home on the Web? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37216404)

What research?

Link. [lmgtfy.com]

Re:Home on the Web? (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 3 years ago | (#37184942)

Or perhaps sleeping on the job.

Re:Home on the Web? (1)

ge7 (2194648) | more than 3 years ago | (#37184718)

That might be ok for hobby or niche sites, but general homepages just about the people? That's a case when I seriously rather take the Facebook's common interface. I don't want to go see hundreds of homepages/blogs/etc with all different looks and features. If you have an interesting blog about some certain thing, sure, but not just for personal stuff.

Re:Home on the Web? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37185008)

I don't want to go see hundreds of homepages/blogs/etc with all different looks and features.

Yes if one site has a navbar on the left and the next site has a navbar on the right, shit man, that might be horribly terribly confusing. You would require many hours of retraining to reintegrate your knowledge in order to leverage the synergy.

Re:Home on the Web? (1)

Zen Punk (785385) | more than 3 years ago | (#37188206)

Remember MySpace? 50% of the shittiest, most infuriated aspects of it were due to allowing extensive customization of individual pages.

Re:Home on the Web? (3, Funny)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 3 years ago | (#37184838)

What about an iGoogle profile page?

And if Facebook is a cookie cutter condo complex of conformity, MySpace is a shitty shantytown of shameless "individualism". And I guess most personal websites are tree houses nailed together with primary colors and blink tags.

Re:Home on the Web? (1)

ksd1337 (1029386) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185416)

And if Facebook is a cookie cutter condo complex of conformity, MySpace is a shitty shantytown of shameless "individualism". And I guess most personal websites are tree houses nailed together with primary colors and blink tags.

I actually do think of it that way. :-)

Although, I'd say that the half-ass treehouses would be "personal websites" on Freewebs.

Re:Home on the Web? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 3 years ago | (#37184866)

Your profile should feel like your home on the web

Um, no. A Facebook profile feels like a cheap apartment. They all look the same, feel the same, and even smell the same (okay, that last one, I don't know what I'm talking about.)

A personal website, on the other hand, now THAT feels like my home on the Web.

Cheap apartment?
A facebook profile is more like a window in the red light district.

Re:Home on the Web? (1)

JDAustin (468180) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185000)

A facebook profile is more like a window in the red light district.

I thought that was a Craigslist profile....

Um no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37184972)

A personal website feels more like jewelry. Quite unneeded, is only meant to broadcast because your trying to SELL something.

Re:Home on the Web? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37185036)

"like a cheap apartment."

Remember the mid 90's when all the AOLers showed up en masse?

Facebook is the new AOL.

Re:Facebook profile (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185532)

50% left turn here.
Why didn't AOL slam dunk this back in the day when the Web was fresh and new? (cue Sunset Boulevard theme music).

Facebook consists of a profile and some, what, 30 games? No chat rooms? No affiliate stuff?

Why did we decide ten years later we pined to look at profiles?

It even had Meg Ryan.

Re:Home on the Web? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185696)

They all look the same, feel the same, and even smell the same (okay, that last one, I don't know what I'm talking about.)

As well they should. Myspace did one thing right: it proved that you should not allow users to make custom backgrounds, change the layout or [shudder] make music play when you land on their profile.

By the way, that's the smell. Myspace allowed you to stink up your apartment with crappy music. Facebook and google plus make sure you keep them odor-free, just like any good landlord.

Re:Home on the Web? (1)

Serpents (1831432) | more than 3 years ago | (#37189146)

Myspace did one thing right: it proved that you should not allow users to make custom backgrounds, change the layout or [shudder] make music play when you land on their profile.

I think custom backgrounds work with twitter because the general layout cannot be changed so no teal letters on pink background or similar crap. I still instantly close any website which tries to play music at me without asking

But can you clearly define "asking"? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#37189524)

I still instantly close any website which tries to play music at me without asking

Say you click a link to a video on YouTube that happens to have music in it [youtube.com] . Is that "asking" enough?

Re:Home on the Web? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37195774)

A personal website, on the other hand, now THAT feels like my home on the Web.

One where you've spent days daubing the walls with your own feces.

Hmmm... (1)

TWX (665546) | more than 3 years ago | (#37184684)

Another change Facebook is introducing is allowing users to modify the audience of a post after it's published, which they couldn't do before.

I've never tried to stuff a cat back into a bag, but I suppose it had to get there somehow in the first place.

I guess as long as no one has seen it while out of the bag then you're okay.

I do wonder what this'll mean for replies to posts. I never signed up for facebook, but it was a fun prank on IPB forums to delete posts when it made a reply look naughty or silly.

About time they caught up (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 3 years ago | (#37184702)

On G+ you can reply to Game events and it stays defaulted to the Game Circle you created for the Game App.

On FB it's hard to do that.

Now at least it's possible - plus no more of those tracking apps that "list your friends" in a "picture" to grab your data.

Crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37184740)

I don't trust neither of them for shit. I would never do. That's why I'm not there and that's why I constantly do what I can to destroy them.

Re:Crap (1)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186080)

Mature.

I don't trust ... them ... that's why I constantly do what I can to destroy them.

Naive. You don't trust them, and yet by attempting to destroy them* you give up all that precious anonymity. You should read Hercule Poirot and get even more paranoid.

* or so you claim. Talk is cheap.

Re:Crap (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#37192048)

He said he constantly does what he can to destroy them. Which may very well be nothing at all.

Re:Crap (1)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 3 years ago | (#37227294)

:-) True. My point was to abide by Hercule Poirot's dictum - the more someone talks, even if they lie, the more they reveal about themselves.

Competition is good! (4, Insightful)

guspasho (941623) | more than 3 years ago | (#37184784)

It's amazing what a little competition will do for your motivation.

Re:Competition is good! (1)

crabboy.com (771982) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185126)

This comment makes me wish I had mod points...

Re:Competition is good! (1, Informative)

Deaddy (1090107) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185394)

Or given modpoints the ability to moderate without turning javascript on.

So long as they keep changing the settings for you (4, Interesting)

Kenja (541830) | more than 3 years ago | (#37184786)

So long as they keep changing the settings for you, who cares how clear they are? The issue is not how "obvious" the security settings are, its that facebook has a history of changing them without notice and exposing users information.

Re:So long as they keep changing the settings for (1)

crossmr (957846) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186662)

In the years that I've used Facebook, my settings have never been changed. Facebook has only "changed" settings for people who never changed their own settings in the first place. If you left everything default full open, then when they added new controls, those were also left default full open.
Anyone who'd ever changed their settings never had them changed.
All the people whinging and moaning last year over this were people who'd never taken the time to change their settings in the first place.

Re:So long as they keep changing the settings for (2)

greg1104 (461138) | more than 3 years ago | (#37187240)

You weren't paying very much attention then to what was being done with your data. Facebook Beacon [wikipedia.org] was one of the worst privacy violations I've ever run into, bad enough for them to lose a class action lawsuit over it. The Face Recognition [nytimes.com] feature was also enabled by default, letting data collected from your pictures be used to tag your face in other people's pictures you appeared. If that doesn't seriously concern you [forbes.com] , you should reconsider just what else could happen with that data.

Re:So long as they keep changing the settings for (2)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 3 years ago | (#37187062)

Rather than moderate this guy up - I need to chirp in and respond that YES, he's precisely correct. Facebook have done this MULTIPLE TIMES.
I don't care how easy the security is to work with, I care about them fucking resetting it on me.

Re:So long as they keep changing the settings for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37191744)

Furthermore, it's not just the privacy settings that other users can see; its Facebook selling your data to advertisers.
Some friends and I have casually used Facebook after only joining two years ago. We have now made a pack with one-another to delete our accounts. They're all in their 14-day count-down of deactivation before deletion, and we all feel so much cleaner knowing they will no longer have anything on us.
We didn't take up Google+ as a replacement, we're adults, we've gone back to actually meeting in person and using (gasp) the telephone.

Reset settings. (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 3 years ago | (#37184792)

Don't they reset privacy setting every once in a while or something like that? I don't pay them a lot of attention.

Re:Reset settings. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37188478)

Don't they reset privacy setting every once in a while or something like that? I don't pay them a lot of attention.

No, no they don't. Stop spreading FUD especially when you've already admitted you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

+2 ??? Mods, get your shit together.

Re:Reset settings. (1)

thsths (31372) | more than 3 years ago | (#37189936)

> Don't they reset privacy setting every once in a while or something like that? I don't pay them a lot of attention.

Yes, that would be my bigger complaints. You can restrict access in facebook, but you always have to be on the ball, because new features are opt-out, and they often "ruin" (supposedly inadvertently) your privacy settings. Ok, it hasn't happened since this announcement, but I would expect that to continue.

Completely bogus. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37184796)

They save 100% of everything you send to them. And they can and will sell it to anyone they feel like, anytime in the future. Maybe tomorrow, maybe a year or two from now. But they will eventually sell it. Your "privacy" is of no concern to them.

Re:Completely bogus. (3, Insightful)

PickyH3D (680158) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185450)

The only difference with Google+ is that Google is the ad agency. And if they kick you off, then you lose access to everything related to your account.

Google is demanding your full, legal name. They want you to join Gmail so that they can sell you ads by scanning your email. All of that goes along with the pretty picture that is painted by your Google searches.

I hate Facebook, but at least I do not have Facebook email or Facebook search, ignoring the Like buttons all over the place analogous to Google Analytics. I draw the line with Google at Gmail. I cannot keep getting deeper and deeper entrenched with any single company, especially when the potential of being banned, for any reason, has a lot of other potential side effects.

As long as Facebook keeps its borders intact, and no other independent player pops up, then I will likely be stuck on Facebook and not on Google+.

Re:Completely bogus. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37188592)

And if they kick you off, then you lose access to everything related to your account

Depending on why they kick you, it may only be one service or all of them.

Google is demanding your full, legal name.

They always have. Maybe try reading that TOS agreement which says they'll do this before you give them bogus info, agree to the terms, and then invest heavily in your phony login. The more important question is if you're already giving them phony information, why the hell are you tying two different fake identities together? That's just dumb, and you deserve what you get. Use your real info or learn to keep your fake profiles apart from each other.

As long as Facebook keeps its borders intact

They've never been intact to start with. You bitch about Google scanning your email but don't mention how FB wants to link your emails and auto-scan your contacts.
I'm not sure what "picture" you've been showing to Google, but I don't log in and google analytics is blocked at the hosts file level, (and gets caught by my Noscript plugin for firefox) so they don't get much of anything from me.

A +4 Insightful for bitching about things which are entirely within your control to prevent. Typical BS on here these days. Stop expecting everything in life to be handed to you on a silver fucking platter. You're getting a ton of value out of a free service. If you want the easy route of not messing with your privacy, not doing things like adding plugins or ensuring you're logged out, not cleaning your cache, etc. then you can have that.... at the price of some of your personal information. If that's a good trade for you, then make it. Otherwise don't. Either way, quit yer bitching.

Re:Completely bogus. (1)

PickyH3D (680158) | more than 3 years ago | (#37193318)

Use your real info or learn to keep your fake profiles apart from each other.

Why does the email is a different account?

You bitch about Google scanning your email but don't mention how FB wants to link your emails and auto-scan your contacts.

They can want to do that all that they want. I have never given them the login details to any other service, and I never will.

Stop expecting everything in life to be handed to you on a silver fucking platter.

How in the world does complaining about putting all of your eggs in one basket become expecting everything in life on a silver platter? I could simply avoid Google+ and avoid the hassles altogether.

Who are they kidding? (3, Insightful)

Rumagent (86695) | more than 3 years ago | (#37184824)

Too little, too late.

Re:Who are they kidding? (2)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185168)

"This time it will be different"

Facebook users all seem to suffer from battered wife syndrome when it comes to privacy issues. If you accept that you have no privacy on FB, OK... but believing they actually give a crap about your privacy after all that has happened it just delusional.

Finally. (1)

Seth024 (1241160) | more than 3 years ago | (#37184846)

"Another change Facebook is introducing is allowing users to modify the audience of a post after it's published, which they couldn't do before."

Finally. Why did this have to take so long to implement? I was considering deleting all posts I made that were viewable by everyone to clean up my profile for future job interviews. Luckily now I don't have to.

And it only took them 7 years! (5, Insightful)

Geurilla (759701) | more than 3 years ago | (#37184850)

It only took them seven years to make these changes, too. And what a coincidence that they roll these out right after G+ launches with these features out of the gate.

In terms of privacy, their problem is not a lack of features. Their problem is trust. And after years and years of hard work to make me never trust them they have succeeded. New privacy features just can't fix that. Too little, too late

Well, well (2)

ausrob (864993) | more than 3 years ago | (#37184934)

I wonder if this has anything to do with the reported exodus of users (especially in North America)? Or competition from Google+?

the best facebook privacy setting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37185058)

The best FB privacy setting is the one I've been using all along: don't use it. Then they can't sell my data or change my privacy settings.

Obvious privacy settings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37185074)

are obvious

Facebook Privacy Page (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37185316)

[ ] We hid infokeep the information from people not in your network, but sell all of your information for proft
[ ] We allow people not in your network to see your information, but sell all of your information for profit.

Thanks for using Facebook!

Re:Facebook Privacy Page (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37188740)

Where does this ridiculous idea that Facebook sells people's information come from?
It's unkillable, but it's absolutely false.

Facebook sells your eyeballs, and uses your information to select which eyeball. It doesn't sell your information.

Yes! Facebook+ (1)

JustinFreid (1723716) | more than 3 years ago | (#37185372)

The discoverability of these features is almost as important as their existence.
In place privacy controls let people make informed choices about what gets shared instead of having to correlate unclear descriptions from privacy settings page with the GUI and layout they're familiar with.
Previously, I bet Facebook was betting that the difficulty of implementing privacy settings as user intended would be enough to have them choose the defaults thinking that increased access to their content by friends, and the net total increase in accessibility to people's information, would keep users engaged.
They'd think that those users who would choose not use the network as a result or to lock their pages down into being mere mugshots wouldn't be useful to growing out Facebook, anyway.

Too Late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37185986)

I don't give a shit what Facebook does or doesn't do. I'm never going near it again.

Google+ settings are deceptive (5, Informative)

crow (16139) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186322)

Google+ lets you specify which circles to share each post with. That's fine. Except that you don't share with circles, you share with people. This is a big difference, and a big problem.

Let me explain.

When you share something and say which circles to share it with, Google converts that into a list of all the people in those circles. This is all good and fine as long as your circles don't change. But suppose my mother joins, and I add her to my Family circle. I would expect her to be able to see photos that I've previously shared with my Family circle. No such luck. And suppose I realize that someone shouldn't be in a circle, I can remove them from the circle, but I can't stop them from seeing that post I just shared with that circle without removing the post.

Google needs to fix this so that posts are shared with circles, not people.

Re:Google+ settings are deceptive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37186600)

Have you submitted this to Google?

Seeing as Google+ is still in beta, I would have thought this is exactly the kind of feedback they would want

Re:Google+ settings are deceptive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37227222)

No. The way it works at the moment is far better. If we had it your way, when I add a new friend to a circle, I will have to go back through every post available to people in that circle to check that I'm not leaking information he shouldn't see.

The way it currently is, I only have to worry about future posts to that circle.

Re:Google+ settings are deceptive (1)

fotoguzzi (230256) | more than 3 years ago | (#37231380)

Thank you for bringing this up (and thank you AC for your take, too).

After-the-fact modifying audience of a post (1)

Shag (3737) | more than 3 years ago | (#37186430)

Yay, something useful. And something I'd like to see Google+ do, too. It's been a feature all along on Multiply [multiply.com] , which I used for, gosh, 7 years? But it was hamstrung by their less-than-slick implementation of friend lists.

Which button do I press (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37187826)

so that failbook doesn't see my information? You realize that is the problem, not johnny and Jimmy? Don't go anywhere near failbook. [stallman.org]

Emphasis on the "should never feel" (1)

TapioNuut (615924) | more than 3 years ago | (#37188692)

Your profile should feel like your home on the web — you should never feel like stuff appears there that you don't want, and you should never wonder who sees what's there.

That's they way I read this. I thought this was their wish from the beginning; don't think, just post.

Quite (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 3 years ago | (#37189016)

> You should never wonder who sees what's there

No, you shouldn't, especially not who sees it because we sold it to them. Go and play some more farmville, like a good little product.

You can retroactively change the who sees FB notes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37190170)

So if you are concerned with that, make everything a note. They can also be retroactively edited. Frankly, that is also needed for normal status and shared links. It does get grating at times to correct a typo by re-posting it with the correction and then deleting the original. But frankly, most FB privacy issues are the result of most people not bothering to explore the privacy controls or simply not carrying what privileges they give apps (which I almost never use because they ask for too much).

The Benefits Of Competition (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 3 years ago | (#37190216)

The benefits of competition. Facebook never would have done this without competition from Google+

No privacy with Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37194214)

Facebook has NO privacy. If you want privacy then deactivate your account!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?