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 Users Voting On Privacy, Instagram, Other Issues

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the so-dnc-donors-control-the-election dept.

Facebook 80

Nerval's Lobster writes "Facebook is letting users vote on changes to its Data Use Policy and Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (Facebook users can vote via this link). The company will also host a live Webcast to answer questions at 9:30 AM PST. One section of Facebook's revamped policies insists that the network can share information with its family of companies. This apparently applies to Instagram, the photo-sharing service acquired by Facebook earlier this year. Under the terms of the provision, Facebook can store 'Instagram's server logs and administrative records in a way that is more efficient than maintaining totally separate storage systems.' Facebook is also clarifying its language surrounding affiliates, as well. As long as Facebook continues to exist in its current form, these debates over its privacy rules will almost certainly continue to crop up on a semi-regular basis. The challenge for Facebook executives is how to best maintain that delicate dance between their need for revenue, advertising firms' desire for effective marketing campaigns, and users' rights to privacy. They run a corporation — but at moments, it also starts to resemble a messy democracy."

cancel ×

80 comments

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

In Keeping with US Voting Traditions (5, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year and a half ago | (#42180207)

There are only two options. Both options are super shitty and laced with lies or "half truths."

Re:In Keeping with US Voting Traditions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42180293)

I quite enjoy that rather than telling you what the specific changes are, they just give you four entire documents and ask which of them to use.

Re:In Keeping with US Voting Traditions (1)

Tobenisstinky (853306) | about a year and a half ago | (#42180353)

They forgot the option:

TL;DR

Re:In Keeping with US Voting Traditions (3, Interesting)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42180427)

*Deletes Facebook account* Option three.

Re:In Keeping with US Voting Traditions (2)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#42180669)

That's not really an option. You'll have a shadow account for life.

Re:In Keeping with US Voting Traditions (2)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42180699)

*Gets EMP grenade. Goes to Facebook servers. Toss in, mix well with fire*

Re:In Keeping with US Voting Traditions (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42180903)

Which are redundantly backed up all over the world. Have fun with that.

Re:In Keeping with US Voting Traditions (1)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42180923)

....Damn.

Re:In Keeping with US Voting Traditions (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181281)

Uh, and also making an EMP grenade and using it is not the best way to uphold your privacy. In fact, I think that would get your picture plastered over every major newspaper. Or in a CIA/some other government agency list/secret holding cell/unmarked grave.

Re:In Keeping with US Voting Traditions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181677)

Tape backups don't necessarily work. I've seen one that got eaten by the reader. Dropping one does wonders for data security.

Re:In Keeping with US Voting Traditions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42185021)

*Deletes Facebook account*

Option three.

Delete Facebook account procedure:

1. Log into your Facebook account
2. http://www.facebook.com/help/delete_account
3. Respond to the account deletion prompts, one of them requires both password and captcha
4. Facebook will confirm the account is scheduled for deletion.

If for any reason the account is logged into again, click Confirm Deletion.

Testing shows that this should actually delete the account, including all posts to others' Facebook walls or timelines that were made with that account.

Re:In Keeping with US Voting Traditions (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42180633)

As a political social engineer*, I can tell you that we consider "half truths" and the like to be the best kind of lies.
Because you can tell people that they are not lies, and people will accept that, because they think only positive lies (where you say something wrong) would be lies, and not negative lies (where you don't say something right).

That makes some things incredibly easy. You can openly lie your ass off, and they got nothing, even though they know it's all blatant lies.

(* Don't worry, I'm not working for either "side". I never was in the US in my life, and never will be.)

Re:In Keeping with US Voting Traditions (3, Funny)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181841)

As a political social engineer*, I can tell you that we consider "half truths" and the like to be the best kind of lies. Because you can tell people that they are not lies, and people will accept that, because they think only positive lies (where you say something wrong) would be lies, and not negative lies (where you don't say something right).

That makes some things incredibly easy. You can openly lie your ass off, and they got nothing, even though they know it's all blatant lies.

(* Don't worry, I'm not working for either "side". I never was in the US in my life, and never will be.)

But what aren't you saying here?

Re:In Keeping with US Voting Traditions (1)

ApplePy (2703131) | about a year and a half ago | (#42185887)

Giant Douche, or Turd Sandwich?

Your Vote Matters!

Voting Schmoting (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42180219)

Other places where people get to "vote:" China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba

Re:Voting Schmoting (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42180299)

Fuck your smarmy attitude. It's a website, either use it or don't use it. Nobody's forcing you to do either, so don't make such a big deal about it.

Re:Voting Schmoting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42180403)

And a thousand possies for you invigorating witticism, truly you are a wonder of humankind!

Re:Voting Schmoting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42180741)

Yeah, because when one is either completely fuckin' ignorant of the fact that not using Facebook means one is a cast-out with one's friends, or has no friends whatsoever in the first place and so doesn't know shit, that makes complete sense!

Re:Voting Schmoting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42180829)

If your friends actually give a shit whether you use Facebook or not, then maybe they're not actual friends.

Fun Fact: You can avoid Facebook and still have a social life. Seeing people in person go a lot farther then Liking their new cat picture.

Re:Voting Schmoting (2)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42180949)

Yeah because friends never move away from you to the point that you rarely get to see them in person very often.

Re:Voting Schmoting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181233)

Yeah because friends never move away from you to the point that you rarely get to see them in person very often.

That's true, real friends never move away from you. What kind of friendship have you got where one party essentially says "I rarely (or never) want to see you in person again?"

Re:Voting Schmoting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181449)

Telephone, Snail Mail, Email, IMs, Skype, any every other social networking site that's not affiliated with Facebook.And none of them are bound by these policy changes.

I can't believe this reply was needed.

Re:Voting Schmoting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181215)

If your friends actually give a shit whether you use Facebook or not, then maybe they're not actual friends.

Fun Fact: You can avoid Facebook and still have a social life. Seeing people in person go a lot farther then Liking their new cat picture.

The problem is when they start organizing meetings via facebook. In that scenario they need to invite you separately from how they invite everyone else. And how may times does it take where they just forget to also call you up after deciding what to do on Facebook, or you can't make it (because they chose the time in a facebook discussion that you weren't privy to) before they just stop bothering with "the guy who's hard to reach"?

Re:Voting Schmoting (2)

jitterman (987991) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181407)

It's not a problem. I provide them with e-mail and cell numbers. If they choose not to make that one, very minor, effort to reach out, eff 'em. Now I know where I stand and can move on. I ditched my account several months ago, and have not missed it. Still see the same people that I gave a damn about on line, and don't have to hear from/about the ones I don't (and they in turn don't have to pretend to like me, either).

Re:Voting Schmoting (2)

rainmaestro (996549) | about a year and a half ago | (#42183195)

Nah, real friends don't give a fuck if you have Facebook (for reference, I don't). If they want to do something with me, they call, email, text, IM, whatever.

The real problem is with dating. Apologies to Artie Lange for tweaking one of his jokes: Tell a 25-year-old girl you just met who's trying to FB stalk you that you don't have a FB account, and she'll look at you like you're wearing a Revolutionary War outfit.

Re:Voting Schmoting (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#42190013)

The real problem is with dating. Apologies to Artie Lange for tweaking one of his jokes: Tell a 25-year-old girl you just met who's trying to FB stalk you that you don't have a FB account, and she'll look at you like you're wearing a Revolutionary War outfit.

Try dating girls with a brain instead..

Re:Actually, it is a big deal, in the long run. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42180859)

Facebook isn't just a "website". It's size and reach are helping define what people expect of privacy. I have not ever had a Facebook account, yet I fully expect my future expectations of privacy to hinge on what the masses accept on Facebook. If Facebook sticks around and sets trends and expectations for years to come, what happens there matters. If millions of Americans grant access to something I might consider private, the government may stop defining that thing with a reasonable expectation of privacy. Even if *I* never granted that access.
So, while smarmy isn't productive, some sort of attitude is relevant here. Maybe attitude is what's necessary to get people thinking about what's at stake?

Re:Actually, it is a big deal, in the long run. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42185561)

Block as much of Facebook as you can:

*.facebook.com
*.facebook.net
*.fbkcdn.com
*.fbkcdn.net

Just in case, I also block:

*.fbcdn.com
*.fbcdn.net

It might be a good idea to block the same domains but ending in .org as well as well, just to be sure all of Facebook's current domains are all blocked.

Re:Voting Schmoting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181009)

... USA, UK, Germany

Seriously, our illusion is only better. We have just as little freedom.
Or why do you think despite the fact that there are many more parties in the US than the two big, they never ever get into anything? Other than you having to pay 6-figure sums before you even get to be recognized by a TV network as being a party. Other than TV stations not even listing other parties, even though they got votes. Other than the whole "election" being nothing but who gets the most bribes (that's what "donations" are) from his old boys' club.

Granted, the UK and Germany are not that "capitalist", but the lobbyists basically made bribes meaningless anyway, with the whole world view (yours too) being designed by them.

When you get to actually vote on which lobbyists get to even have any kind of contact to politicians and to you (in the form of "news"), then we can talk. (Disclaimer: I was one of them.)

Not a Democracy (4, Interesting)

nman64 (912054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42180315)

Never, ever mistake a company collecting feedback from its users for a democracy. Facebook's users aren't even its paying customers.

Re:Not a Democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42180445)

Facebook's users aren't even its paying customers.

*deep, annoyed sigh* All right, fine, you've got center stage now, so let's hear the "you're the product not the customer" scary-scary dogma. Yes, I DO mean the stuff that, quite demonstrably, very few people care about, no matter how many times it's been repeated the past few years. Come on, we're waiting. We also don't have all day, so hurry it up so we can get back to actual discussion WITHOUT you.

Re:Not a Democracy (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42180625)

In Facebook's business model, you are the product, not the customer.
And a perfectly legitimate response to that statement is - WHO CARES?
It's just a newish business model - OTA television has used a similar (but less interactive) model for decades... advertisers pay for your eyeballs (and offer up prayers that you are watching live instead of a recording...)
It's not automatically evil in any way.

But that doesn't change the fact that the statement 'you're the product not the customer' is relatively accurate. It's not a complete summation of the business model, of course - but that doesn't make the statement false.

Now that you've thrown your hissy fit about someone daring to criticize the religion of Social Media and it's high priest Zuck, we can get back to actual discussion WITHOUT you.

Re:Not a Democracy (2)

cffrost (885375) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181305)

*deep, annoyed sigh*

Do you emit that noise with every breath, or only when someone has the audacity to criticize your beloved corporate overlord?

Re:Not a Democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42183011)

I'm sure he emits it every time some moron wants to look cool by shouting out token sentences each time a new Facebook story comes out.

Basically it happens whenever some dumbass like nman64 thinks he finally figured out Facebook's business model and decides to show us all the light by repeating what people smarter than him have said for years.

Re:Not a Democracy (2)

Shagg (99693) | about a year and a half ago | (#42182291)

Yes, I DO mean the stuff that, quite demonstrably, very few people care about

The people who don't care about it are the ones suddenly surprised when Facebook doesn't respect their privacy. Of course they aren't interested in your privacy, the entire point of the business model is to take data about you and sell it to someone else.

You're right, most people probably don't care if they're the product or the customer... but they probably should.

Re:Not a Democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42180805)

Also, never, ever mistake voting for politicians as democracy. You are just voting for who will make all the decisions for you.

Real democracy is when the people actually make the decisions themselves. And yes, there is a way to do it without mob rule or tyranny of the majority. [metagovernment.org]

Re:Not a Democracy (3, Informative)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42180989)

Wrong. Democracy only means that all eligible citizens have equal say in the decisions of the body politic. This can be either directly or indirectly through elected representatives. Both are still democracy.

Re:Not a Democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42182687)

Copied right from Wikipedia, but that doesn't make it right. It's a philosophical question.

Politicians want you to believe that casting a vote for them every few years counts as democracy. And politicians have the power, so that's the commonly accepted definition.

However, when those politicians go ahead and betray their constituents by being corrupt, power-hungry, etc., then that is not democracy. And guess what? Politicians always betray their constituents. Because "power corrupts" is not just an idle saying.

Re:Not a Democracy (1)

Shagg (99693) | about a year and a half ago | (#42182131)

Yep. Facebook's users are the product. That's a big part of the problem right there.

Options (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42180355)

"They run a corporation â" but at moments, it also starts to resemble a messy democracy."

At first, I was going to roll my eyes (as if the submitter actually implied that this gesture resembled democracy in reality in any way), but then I reliased what a genius comment this was.

Of course it resembles a messy democracy: it's a meaningless facade presented by a corporation.

LOL, epic fail ... (5, Informative)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42180419)

So if you already have your permissions a little restrictive and don't allow apps, when you go there you get confronted with this:

Start Now Apps and Games
You are about to use Facebook Site Governance, a Start Now app. These apps start with your name, profile picture, other public info and friend list to immediately personalize your experience on Facebook.
Opt Out at Any Time
There are two ways to stop using this app and its personalization features. The first few times you use it, click Disable in the banner at the top. You can also remove it in App Settings.
To opt out of all Start Now apps, visit your Instant Personalization Settings. Learn more about instant personalization.

So, in order to participate in this voting, you need to agree to even more access by this thing just to find out what it looks like.

Facebook really are a bunch of asses aren't they? This is the same setting which wants to be used by apps and games to give them access to all of your data.

Will someone please lock Zuckerface into a room with a bear or something?

Re:LOL, epic fail ... (2)

deiol (741017) | about a year and a half ago | (#42180745)

So if you already have your permissions a little restrictive and don't allow apps, when you go there you get confronted with this:

Start Now Apps and Games
You are about to use Facebook Site Governance, a Start Now app. These apps start with your name, profile picture, other public info and friend list to immediately personalize your experience on Facebook.
Opt Out at Any Time
There are two ways to stop using this app and its personalization features. The first few times you use it, click Disable in the banner at the top. You can also remove it in App Settings.
To opt out of all Start Now apps, visit your Instant Personalization Settings. Learn more about instant personalization.

So, in order to participate in this voting, you need to agree to even more access by this thing just to find out what it looks like.

Facebook really are a bunch of asses aren't they? This is the same setting which wants to be used by apps and games to give them access to all of your data.

Will someone please lock Zuckerface into a room with a bear or something?

I believe you are prompted with this request for permission because I don't think this is an actual application or voting page from Facebook. This is an application from a social media company called Thuzi. The 'voting page' linked in the summary contains an iframe to https://fbgovernance.thuzi.com/ [thuzi.com] . I don't think this is legitimate.

Re:LOL, epic fail ... (2)

jonnythan (79727) | about a year and a half ago | (#42180869)

No, you specifically need to allow the app in order to cast your vote. That's because it's the only good way to interface the module with your account. It doesn't make sense to somehow plug it directly into the backend and feed it through your Settings or something.

Re:LOL, epic fail ... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42180893)

I believe you are prompted with this request for permission because I don't think this is an actual application or voting page from Facebook. This is an application from a social media company called Thuzi.

So, in order to vote on Facebook's privacy policy you need to allow a 3rd party access to your data, and possibly against what you've already chosen as your privacy policy.

They're not even trying are they?

Re:LOL, epic fail ... (1)

deiol (741017) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181145)

On the Facebook legal terms & conditions page [facebook.com] I found a reference to the Facebook Site Governance [facebook.com] page, so it appears to be legitimate. But still, it requires you vote using a 3rd party app from Thuzi, so Thuzi gets limited information of yours as well.

Re:LOL, epic fail ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42183665)

To opt out of our information collecting, please leave your name, home and cell number, email address, physical address and a few pictures of yourself. We will collect this data and opt you out if some percentage of people agree.

Here's the kicker, why does it take a majority or a vote to change some privacy settings or options? Can't they just make them individual preferences and let people decide? This is a pretty lame attempt to make people feel more involved and proactive with Facebook, fooling people into thinking they have a say. My guess is later when the government comes probing about privacy or a lawsuit props up, they can show stats that show people did not want certain privacy controls.

Re:LOL, epic fail ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42180787)

Will someone please lock Zuckerface into a room with a bear or something?

I heard he locks himself up with a bear regularly, although now only on "guys' nights out" now that he's married.

Re:LOL, epic fail ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181371)

With a horny camel maybe.

One question to every developer, every person who ever had a website. Why do you need logs? Why do you need logs for every single thing the user does? Why are you allowed to record those things?

This reminds me too much, of when I lived as a kid in the communist era. You couldn't say anything bad about the leaders, couldn't do anything out of pattern, because anyone, a neighbor, relative, colleague might be working for the secret police ...

Re:LOL, epic fail ... (2)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about a year and a half ago | (#42182035)

I didnt post the above but bear is also a term for a big hairy gay guy. You uh...missed the point.

Re:LOL, epic fail ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42183365)

Oh boo hoo. Would you like to borrow one of my two dozen fake accounts to cast your vote?

This isn't like a real election where you have to use your real identity to gain access. But just like a real election, expect votes to fall off the back of a truck and end up in /dev/null

Will it really matter? (2)

sakkathotmagaa (2728241) | about a year and a half ago | (#42180437)

Irrespective of the results, suppose they don't align to your expectations, there is really only one alternative as stated in their TOS - leave. That's what happens when you command a user base of a billion.

failbork (4, Interesting)

Korruptionen (2647747) | about a year and a half ago | (#42180475)

To be honest, there is NOTHING that makes me think of privacy when using FaceBook. To me... there privacy is an illusion, nothing more.

Re:failbork (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42180631)

THANK YOU. I don't get why everyone's always up in arms about Facebook privacy. The rule is simple - don't post anything on Facebook that you don't mind the rest of the world knowing/seeing/indexed forever/whatever.

It's the price to pay when you're using these sorts of websites. We weren't forced to create an account there.

Re:failbork (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181333)

The problem is that your privacy is only as strong as it's weakest link. Your dumb-ass friends can for example tag you in an embarrassing photograph. That's not necessarily a problem unique to the Internet except that there's no way to get rid of it later when for example: you've graduated college, are job hunting, and all those pics of you passed-out with penises on your face and a pile of white powder in the frame look a lot less like "harmless fun."

Re:failbork (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181867)

The rule is simple - don't post anything on Facebook that you don't mind the rest of the world knowing/seeing/indexed forever/whatever.

I don't have a Facebook account, but I exist there because of what other people post.

What smart-arse comment do you have for me now?

Re:failbork (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42182715)

How about educate the 'other people' not to be Jackasses?

Jackass.

Re:failbork (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42183155)

None, because this has nothing to do with Facebook. Rather, it has everything to do with the fact that your friends are posting things about you, which they could do just as easily on MySpace or in real life.

Re:failbork (2)

somersault (912633) | about a year and a half ago | (#42180847)

What the hell are you talking about? In that case, all privacy is an illusion.

There are privacy settings on Facebook which you can set to restrict other people, applications or websites from seeing the data that you have chosen to enter into Facebook. I just went to the privacy settings and saw the you can stop Facebook from interacting with other websites and applications entirely, but I'm leaving the capabilities enabled because I find it convenient to use the "login with Facebook" button on some sites. (Cue someone spouting a quote from a dead guy about liberty).

If you are really that paranoid, just don't use Facebook. You'd better also never go outside. You never know when someone might try to look at you or even listen to you. How awful would that be?

Re:failbork (1)

Korruptionen (2647747) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181235)

I agree with you, actually. What the hell I was talking about was the illusion that FaceBook may give their population by "voting?" As the comment before stated, do not post anything on facebook that you do not want out there forever. That's partly what I was talking about. The other issue of this ties in with the ownership of content, and how privacy is kinda thrown by the wayside when whatever you post on facebook doesn't technically belong to you anymore. For a time, I didn't use facebook. Now when or if I do, it's for limited communication. I do not "check in", or post undoctored photos. Thanks for your comment though. :)

Re:failbork (1)

somersault (912633) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181427)

Oh. Yep, I'd say we're in agreement then :p It's nice to see someone who is taking a rational and realistic stance on the issue for once.

I went to this voting app hoping that it would be about voting on default privacy settings. When I saw that it was voting on one of two Facebook-defined privacy policies, I left.

Re:failbork (1)

Korruptionen (2647747) | about a year and a half ago | (#42183015)

Didn't even look. Not because I have facebook blocked with my security appliance here at work, but because I kinda knew that's what was going to happen. To me, if they were going to have defaults voted on... that would be at least a step in the correct direction. For example, if pages were completely closed down by default and you had to go in and specify what type of data you want to share... rather than wide open. In the past, these "privacy" settings I swear change without notice, and I've had info shared just because they changed their options, and I was on them that minute to notice their subtle change. ...... I'm going back to MySpace. I felt a hell of alot safer there. XD

Re:failbork (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181087)

Facebook is pointless it won't even let me speak about my interests (Lemonparty / goatse / tubgirl / 2 girls one cup).

Like this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42180519)

Unforunately, there's only one button to press: "Like this!"

Vote no or vote no more (5, Informative)

aaron44126 (2631375) | about a year and a half ago | (#42180613)

One of the changes in the new set of documents is the removal of this community voting process. Ars Technica has a brief article [arstechnica.com] on the changes.

As of 2012-12-04 17:00 UTC (1)

mdsharpe (1051460) | about a year and a half ago | (#42180701)

So far the outcome is overwhelmingly in favour of keeping their current "SRR" and Data Use Policy, by about 10:1.

Re:As of 2012-12-04 17:00 UTC (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42180819)

If I recall correctly, FB is free to ignore any vote with less than 40% participation. So please ask 400,000,000 of your FB Friends to participate. When I voted 3 hours ago, about 60,000 had done so.

Re:As of 2012-12-04 17:00 UTC (1)

skovenborg (779251) | about a year and a half ago | (#42196779)

Accordning to a note from Facebook Site Governance [facebook.com] if "more than 30% of all active registered users vote, the results will be binding. If turnout is less than 30%, the vote will be advisory".

To expect 30% to actually read the proposed changes or even care to vote... well, I guess that's a little optimistic. I wouldn't expect the vote to actually have any effect at all so the changes will probably be implemented anyway. Not that I suggest not to vote but this "democratic approach" seems like it's just for the sake of it. But thanks for asking us.

Is this even a legitimate voting app from Facebook (1)

deiol (741017) | about a year and a half ago | (#42180717)

I checked the link in the summary: https://apps.facebook.com/fbsitegovernance/ [facebook.com] and it consists of an iframe that loads the remote site https://fbgovernance.thuzi.com/ [thuzi.com] .

Was Thuzi contracted by Facebook to perform this vote? Why would they be? Thuzi appears to be some sort of online social media marketing firm. Looks fishy to me.

Re:Is this even a legitimate voting app from Faceb (1)

deiol (741017) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181739)

I checked the link in the summary: https://apps.facebook.com/fbsitegovernance/ [facebook.com] and it consists of an iframe that loads the remote site https://fbgovernance.thuzi.com/ [thuzi.com] .

Was Thuzi contracted by Facebook to perform this vote? Why would they be? Thuzi appears to be some sort of online social media marketing firm. Looks fishy to me.

I did some further digging and on the Facebook legal terms & conditions page I found a reference to the Facebook Site Governance page, so it appears to be legitimate.

Re:Is this even a legitimate voting app from Faceb (2)

Jerslan (1088525) | about a year and a half ago | (#42182973)

A google search showed me that apparently they publish their Facebook API's to GitHub... Link [github.com]

Doesn't make it any less fishy, but it's more info about them...

trust FB with your votes...? (1)

froth-bite (2777385) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181017)

In a way, to (pretend to) hold voting on privacy changes is a new method for companies to move their customers at a pace that the majority are willing to accept. call it social mass manipulation, but it might be the wave of our future.

Let's vote on this: (0)

CimmerianX (2478270) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181111)

George W. Bush: A. Great President B. Greatest President ... I await your answer.

Doesn't count (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181203)

The vote isn't even recognized unless 30% of all Facebook users vote.
http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=76815337130 [facebook.com]

30% of 1 billion = 300 Million
So 300 million people have to vote for them to even consider the results.
Good luck. This vote is just for show.

Re:Doesn't count (1)

ironicsky (569792) | about a year and a half ago | (#42184457)

I came here to say that, and you are correct. If Facebook wanted to give it an effort, they would have messaged every user, put it as a sticky at the top of the time line, or some other sort of pop-up bubble, like they do when they announce new features. The only way you learn about Facebook Governance, Security, or other things of interest is if you purposely seek them out. Off topic, but did you know you can sign up for a special "hacking account" where the sole purpose is to try and break Facebook's security through the UI? You only know about this if you dig around, like most cool things on Facebook :-) https://www.facebook.com/whitehat/accounts/ [facebook.com]

You FAJIL It (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181265)

There is no democracy without accountability. (2)

conspirator23 (207097) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181331)

There is nothing about the current FB process that contains any true accountability. This is a marketing exercise designed to give the noisiest contingent of FB users something they can do to create the illusion that they have a voice. Consider:

1. The current voting process has a minimum participation requirement for decisions to be binding. This participation threshold has never been met.
2. One of the changes being voted for is doing away with the voting system.

This is how it's going to play out: Facebook is going to work harder and harder to monetize the details of your personal life until somebody powerful and/or well-loved by the public is burned by their behavior, a la Gen. Petraues. Then there will be legislation to curb the powers of private entities like Facebook as a knee-jerk reaction. That is what a real "messy democracy" looks like.

YUO FAIL it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42181675)

Ghobby. It was aal Usenet. In 1995, 'doing something' the reaper In a was after a long have left in

I actually have to READ the privacy statement? (1)

cvtan (752695) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181695)

Forget that! I just want to turn off the *()^%$! Places map in the timeline.

Why all the grumbling? (2)

ryan.onsrc (1321531) | about a year and a half ago | (#42181907)

At least there isn't an electoral college involved.

IMPOSSIBLE - 30% FB voting. What % will? (1)

davecrusoe (861547) | about a year and a half ago | (#42183415)

Ok, let's stop to consider this for a moment. 30% of the Facebook subscriber base needs to participate if the measure is to pass. What's the liklihood of that happening if:

(1) A significant percentage of all FB subscribers are spambots (estimated at 6-10% - http://www.insidefacebook.com/category/spam-2/ [insidefacebook.com] )

(2) The average turnout of a normal adult voting population for US elections is ~50% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout)

(3) There is a gap between "all users" and "monthly active users" - hard to estimate (e.g., http://www.forbes.com/sites/limyunghui/2012/09/30/1-billion-facebook-users-on-earth-are-we-there-yet/ [forbes.com] )

(4) Voting requires registering for an app, which (see other comments) also reduces turnout?

I think we can say, with relative confidence, that it's very unlikely that a full 30% of all 'Facebookizens' will express their right to vote. Which is probably why Facebook set the 30% threshold in the first place.

But, it'll be fun to estimate: what percentage of FB users will actually vote in the end?

--D

Check for New 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>