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's Graph Search Is a Privacy Test For Internet Users

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the and-none-of-them-have-studied dept.

Facebook 104

An anonymous reader writes "An article in the NY Times makes the case that Graph Search, Facebook's recently unveiled social search utility, will be a test for users of the social networking site which will have consequences for the internet at large. The test will show whether people are willing to take the next step in sharing parts of their lives, and whether social search is the future for online interaction. '...the company engineers who created the tool — former Google employees — say that the project will not reach its full potential if Facebook data is "sparse," as they call it. But the company is confident people will share more data, be it the movies they watch, the dentists they trust or the meals that make their mouths water.' CompSci professor Oren Etzioni says it's a watershed moment for the social internet because of the scale at which Facebook operates. A decade ago, people began making the choice to share their lives online; buying into social search would be the biggest step since then. A related post by the Electronic Frontier Foundation can be summed up with this single line: 'If you walk down a crowded public street, you are probably seen by dozens of people—but it would still feel creepy for anyone to be able to look up a list of every road you've walked down.'"

cancel ×

104 comments

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

How it'll work (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42635247)

There will be a backlash. Facebook will roll back the feature. Then in a few months, once the backlash has faded, they'll bring it back silently.

A Gimmick not a tool. (1)

oztiks (921504) | about a year and a half ago | (#42636487)

I fail to see how this feature will be accurate enough because FaceBook users are not all that consistent. I don't wish to be brash but the general population are the single most worst data entry officers / records keepers.

FB is not set up or used to be used as a professional tool. E.G Going to a Dentist based on your friends "likes" **. Since "liking" a place, doesn't equate to the place being right next to you and your family members / friends could live on the other side of the country, therefore rendering a useless search. It requires a tremendous amount of GPS overhead on the places to get the results right. I.E the place in question, your friends and yourself needs to be accurate (up-to-date) which means "taken" and then used to compile search relevancy.

Another example, Going to a place for dinner means you've uploaded a photo of you being with a pile of people at a particular place and nine times out of ten nobody really goes to the place and tags the "place" in the photo. Besides, if your friends went their and YOU didn't, maybe it's time to take a good long hard look at yourself and think "it's time to reduce my Facebook hours because I'm not getting invited out any more."

I see the long term potential of something like this eventually combating Google Places (at best) but the issues are to that is Google Places already does this better, it's a part of real technology like, I dunno, Android (a working popular mobile platform).

Many Google Places house reviews by strangers about particular locations which I think is good enough besides the last thing companies want is to do is lose the power of their own reviews and they will if they ask FB to base their company's importance against competitors via social interaction. In essence using this services means Businesses are going to have to give up the control on their own product popularity and leave it in the hands of the general population to decide.

Lastly, I fail to see it's overall relevancy. Dentist? are people that much of losers to post which dentist they go to? really? People who complain about privacy yet post this kind of data only has themselves to blame if they post who their freaking doctors are on FB.

** Yes it's one of the key examples used in Zukkers presentation video, look it up, its worth a laugh just how 1 min in the whole thing it loses all substance.

Re:A Gimmick not a tool. (1)

TheLink (130905) | about a year and a half ago | (#42638359)

I fail to see how this feature will be accurate enough because FaceBook users are not all that consistent.

Yeah I have a friend who likes practically EVERYTHING. OK I exaggerate, it's only 6000+ likes. Another likes 3000. And another likes 70.

FWIW I can't even find stuff I know is there with Facebook's normal search. Whether on my profile/timeline or a friend's. And it's with the exact keyword match too. Only stuff not older than a few days shows up. If I manually search for it, it's there.

Re:How it'll work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42638497)

There will be a backlash. Facebook will roll back the feature. Then in a few months, once the backlash has faded, they'll bring it back silently.

There will not be a backlash.

People on Facebook no longer care about security features or privacy. If they actually did, they would have left 3 years and 17 EULA changes ago.

And the real problem with concentrating this kind of information is it will not matter if you remain private and disconnected from that nightmare if everyone around you has the record button turned on. Your online profile will be "built" simply from the noise surrounding you.

Hmm (5, Interesting)

koan (80826) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635257)

What about those of us that do not want to participate in these things? At what point will it become awkward to say state I don't use Facebook, or will it just become some terrible social stigma ::whisper::"He doesn't have a social account.."::/whisper::

Re:Hmm (1)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635299)

Welcome to Martyrdom. My name is Jetra and I'm one of few that don't use Facebook anymore.

Re:Hmm (2)

techno-vampire (666512) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635459)

Hi, Jetra. I can do you one better: I've never used Facebook and the few times I've gotten there by accident I've left as quickly as possible because I can't imagine there being anything there that could possibly interest me.

Re:Hmm (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635583)

I'm allergic to Facebook.

Re:Hmm (2)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about a year and a half ago | (#42636029)

You had it easy. When I were a lad we had to have our house painted Facebook blue, we were all issued with RFID "like" stamps we had to use at least 300 times a day before we were allowed any food, all rubbish had to be signed and scanned before it could be sent to Permanent Storage, and every tuesday evening Mark Zuckerberg would come round and we had to pick the athlete's foot flakes from between his toes.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42636161)

I'm guessing RMS's silence was purchase with said foot flakes?

Re:Hmm (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#42646635)

Facebook killed my puppy when I was a young child.

Re:Hmm (2)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635961)

In order to make graph search more valuable, we helpfully disabled all your privacy settings.

Re:Hmm (3, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42636135)

"In order to make graph search more valuable, we helpfully disabled all your privacy settings."

Not so far from the truth. In the last "update", they set everybody's "allow search" setting to True.

Coincidence? I think not.

Re:Hmm (1)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#42637885)

Has any so-called 'privacy' setting on Facebook ever defaulted to the least-sharing value?

every new checkbox always defaults to the 'share everything to the most people' value
all other checkboxes are configured to sporadically bump to the next higher sharing value, so your profile and info gradually get shared more, but you can't be completely sure if you made a mistake, or if it's a bug in Facebook

Re:Hmm (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42636165)

Mod up.

I have a Facebook account. In fact I have several. I don't use them. They are only there for amusement.

For example: when they came out with that "real name only" policy, I opened a new account under the most ridiculous name I could think of at the time. Not only is it still there, it occasionally gets friend requests.

No doubt those are spam... I doubt anybody here at Slashdot who read the name would even consider "friending" that account. But it serves to illustrate the ridiculousness of the whole thing.

Re:Hmm (1)

PartyBoy!911 (611650) | about a year and a half ago | (#42638125)

And you all do this from separate internet connections and different browsers? If not, they still now it's you and they don't care if some of them are false.
They just aggregate all the data from all the accounts tied to you.
Even then, the more accounts FB has (even fakes), the more money they make. Or do you think they believe themselves all their users a real when they advertise their > 1 billion+ users.

Re:Hmm (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#42641803)

"And you all do this from separate internet connections and different browsers?"

I'm not trying to fool Facebook. Or not much, anyway. It's other Facebook USERS I'm having fun with.

Handing Facebook correctly: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42636701)


# /etc/hosts

127.0.0.1 facebook.com www.facebook.com

Re:Handing Facebook correctly: (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year and a half ago | (#42637831)


# /etc/hosts

127.0.0.1 facebook.com www.facebook.com

Mark Zuckerberg, is that you?

Re:Hmm (1)

HeadlessNotAHorseman (823040) | about a year and a half ago | (#42651659)

I can go one better than that. I don't even use the internet, except the occasional booking at the library, to ensure I don't use Facebook. One time at the library I did stumble upon Facebook by accident, so I crushed the computer with a steamroller, closed my library account, and moved to a different city.

Welcome Jetra (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42635613)

Welcome Jetra. I too do not use Facebook.

I created a dummy account years ago to see what all the fuss was about. I used it for an hour, saw what a privacy nightmare it was and how fun it was to "creep". I've never used it again.

I did not intend to use it but, in light of this new privacy negating "feature", I'm certain to never use it.

Privacy Advice: Get a FB account (2)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635857)

Okay, I'm a hypocrite. I don't have a FB account. But I think it makes far more sense to have a FB account that you fill with partly real, mostly bogus information than not having one and getting marked out as a oddball, paranoid, delusional type. The thing is, use FB the way savvy celebrities use the media. Generate just enough buzz to throw off the scent and make people believe you're a normal person, whatever that means. "Hold" fake opinions on non-controversial topics. Don't hold controvesial views on controversial topics, or pick a few pet controversies like nuclear power, gun or animal rights. And decline invites from people you don't know or haven't re-searched well. Accept invites from the operators of both political parties. This will make you less like to attract the attention of the Feds, than being RMS.

Re:Privacy Advice: Get a FB account (3, Insightful)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635891)

Trust me, they can use anything against you when ti comes to mudslinging.

Re:Privacy Advice: Get a FB account (1)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635945)

True. So be very extra careful of your likes. Keep criticism to the generic minimum or use weasel words, like "I think X isn't being entirely truthful" rather than using the libelous "L" word. Moreover, not having an FB account could set off a much louder alarm. IIRC the social networking footprints of suspects in recent mass violence cases were surprisingly low to virtually non-existent.

Re:Privacy Advice: Get a FB account (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42636069)

IIRC the social networking footprints of suspects in recent mass violence cases were surprisingly low to virtually non-existent.

Indeed, and there were front-page CNN and BBC stories about the "unusual" lack of social media presence. It's just the beginning, but not using Facebook like "normal people" is being looked at a possible predictor of deviant or violent behavior.

Yay, 1984, here we come!

Re:Privacy Advice: Get a FB account (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#42646777)

IIRC the social networking footprints of suspects in recent mass violence cases were surprisingly low to virtually non-existent.

Indeed, and there were front-page CNN and BBC stories about the "unusual" lack of social media presence. It's just the beginning, but not using Facebook like "normal people" is being looked at a possible predictor of deviant or violent behavior.

Yay, 1984, here we come!

As long as they can't actually convict you just for not having a facebook account, I don't care.

Possible predictors of deviant or violent behaviour don't mean a lot, as it is generally only after the event that people notice them. It's amazing how often someone will be described as creepy, weird, or somehow not normal after they've been convicted.

Re:Privacy Advice: Get a FB account (1)

PartyBoy!911 (611650) | about a year and a half ago | (#42638105)

Naturally I'd like to shoot people as I have no facebook account. ......But I also don't have guns.
Why should I have to change my behaviour because I maybe suspect?? What you are saying here is the same thing people told you in the former USSR etc.
I think I'd rather move to North Korea then the US at the moment.

Re:Privacy Advice: Get a FB account (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42635939)

God forbid that people whose opinions don't really matter might think of you as an "oddball, paranoid, delusional type".

After all, what's the point of having convictions if some people disagree with them? Better to just go with the flow so you don't stand out.

Re:Privacy Advice: Get a FB account (4, Insightful)

kheldan (1460303) | about a year and a half ago | (#42636199)

I don't have time to waste on bullshit like that.

Re:Privacy Advice: Get a FB account (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42638567)

I don't have time to waste on bullshit like that.

Don't worry. It won't matter if you don't when everyone around you does. We will learn about you regardless from them.

Now think about that as this kind of data gathering starts to creep into other areas of your life.

Privacy as we know it...is over.

And nothing is ever truly free.

Re:Privacy Advice: Get a FB account (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about a year and a half ago | (#42654183)

Fuck you, asshole. As long as nobody is bugging my house with cameras and microphones, I STILL HAVE PRIVACY, AND YOU CAN'T TAKE IT FROM ME.

Re:Privacy Advice: Get a FB account (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42636241)

"I think it makes far more sense to have a FB account that you fill with partly real, mostly bogus information than not having one and getting marked out as a oddball, paranoid, delusional type."

I do. Just as with my Slashdot comments, I lay false trails. Enough that I usually know whether somebody is trying to mess with me, anyway. And yes, one or two people have fallen for it. Though they don't know it yet. I may just give them enough rope to hang themselves. We'll see.

Re:Hmm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42635329)

What about those of us that do not want to participate in these things? At what point will it become awkward to say state I don't use Facebook, or will it just become some terrible social stigma ::whisper::"He doesn't have a social account.."::/whisper::

I predict governments will make social graphs mandatory by law within 20 years. Facebook may be one of the private enterprises that will place bids to perform the tracking.
The western world is f*cked and I know government is able to connect this anonymous posting with me, if they would want to do so.

Re:Hmm (1)

Ardyvee (2447206) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635341)

I would be more worried about when will these searches only reinforce your belief instead of allowing you to be exposed to many different things. Unless, of course, you have polarities among your friends. However, the question still stands.

And not having a facebook account? Well, if this becomes an stigma... this would be my reaction. [youtube.com] [youtube.com]

Not much of a plan. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42635395)

You can't leave the planet. You could theoretically leave the country, but your destination choices would be:

a) other developed countries where Facebook is also in heavy use and the stigma is just as strong
b) undeveloped countries with no Internet, and an inability to provide you with the lifestyle you desire.

Face it, THERE IS NO ESCAPE.

Don't be a coward and run away. Get involved and FIX THE PROBLEMS AT HOME.

Re:Not much of a plan. (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about a year and a half ago | (#42636213)

FIX THE PROBLEMS AT HOME

I'll "fix the problems at home" by NOT using stupid privacy-invading bullshit like Failbook.

Take Control (5, Insightful)

ideonexus (1257332) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635433)

There's no social stigma to not using Facebook, but there is incredulity. People can't believe you don't use it, but I have lots of friends who have opted out of the social network. When people express shock at your lack of an account, just shrug nonchalantly and say you simply don't have time for it. A large number of people who are FB addicts are so because they have no higher purpose in life. If you're engaged with life, you aren't posting perpetually to your newsfeed.

I confess I get a guilty pleasure out of the semi-regular meltdowns and drama people post on the site that they really shouldn't be sharing. People will post things to facebook or associate themselves with causes that they would never reveal to me were we in person, and people really need to think of Facebook as interacting with 100s of people in person and whether you're okay with every single one of those people knowing these things about you (this includes clicking "Like" or commenting on anything controversial, it's amazing the things I've learned about my friends watching the "Ticker" of activity--it's much worse than the public newsfeed). I have one friend who runs two accounts, a fake one with his real name where he maintains a professional facade, and a real one with a fake name where he feels free to talk about politics and make outrageous controversial statements.

My strategy is that I use my real name on Facebook, but I remain highly cognizant of the fact that I am presenting a public persona. I've posted controversial subjects only a few times, and ended up pulling those things down. Instead, I try to post things that I feel present me in the best possible light. I word everything like a politician, keep my content engaging but noncontroversial, and block/hide anyone who posts controversial comments in response to my posts. There are one or two photos of me passed out at a party from 10 years ago online, but you can't find them anymore because I've flooded the internet with subjectmatter that I'm proud of and want associated with me. It's all in how you use it, and every single teenager should be put into a mandatory public school class to teach them how to manage their online reputations and the real life consequences of their online actions.

Re:Take Control (4, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635793)

I don't use FB and don't have a mobile phone. It's not a deliberate strategy, I just don't like people that much.

Re:Take Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42636685)

I don't use FB and don't have a mobile phone. It's not a deliberate strategy, I just don't like people that much.

Like!

Re:Take Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42636983)

I don't use FB and don't have a mobile phone. It's not a deliberate strategy, I just don't like people that much.

I think I finally found someone I like.

Re:Take Control (1)

crafty.munchkin (1220528) | about a year and a half ago | (#42637423)

What a shame you can't friend them on Facebook! :P

Re:Take Control (1)

Mike Frett (2811077) | about a year and a half ago | (#42637897)

We are the same. No phone and no FB. I'll 1UP you by saying there are very few people I enjoy being around, but not for more than 10 Minutes before they become increasingly annoying.

Re:Take Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42636323)

There is, actually, a social stigma against people who don't use Facebook. And it has become more difficult to communicate with people without the aid of Facebook simply because so many people have abandoned e-mail and other IM clients. I'm not happy about it, but it's definitely there. Personally I don't mind so much, I have an account which is mostly idle except to send private messages between friends. I post occasionally, but I don't put anything on there I wouldn't say in public. I'm not too worried about data on me linking out because there isn't anything there to see that I wouldn't post on physical notice board.

Re:Take Control (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about a year and a half ago | (#42636801)

Wow, fake and proud of it get's a +5!

Re:Take Control (3, Insightful)

ideonexus (1257332) | about a year ago | (#42640043)

Not fake. It's the real me, but a selective presentation of myself. We all wear many faces. The person I am in the workplace is not the same person I am at the bar with my close friends is not the same person I am when I'm with my family. That's just a natural part of being a social animal.

Re:Take Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42636953)

I'm from a pre-fb gen. Back then you would find the rare family that just had to print & distribute weekly newsletters of the goings on within their family and extended families - as if they were the most interesting family in the world. It was primarily annoying. I get the convenience of fb w/ its multimedia & personal multicast communications features. But for bubble-brained analysts to conclude "you're abnormal" if you don't use fb, just highlights fallacies of group-think/herd mentality. I don't want to know everything about you. I don't want to browse through all your's & your families' picture albums. I don't want to hang out & shoot the breeze with all your friends, and their friends, and their friends' friends ad nauseaum. Its like going back to the schoolyard social life w/gossip and drama, only now its permantly publicized.

Re:Take Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42638781)

My strategy is that I use my real name on Facebook, but I remain highly cognizant of the fact that I am presenting a public persona. I've posted controversial subjects only a few times, and ended up pulling those things down. Instead, I try to post things that I feel present me in the best possible light. I word everything like a politician, keep my content engaging but noncontroversial, and block/hide anyone who posts controversial comments in response to my posts. There are one or two photos of me passed out at a party from 10 years ago online, but you can't find them anymore because I've flooded the internet with subjectmatter that I'm proud of and want associated with me. It's all in how you use it, and every single teenager should be put into a mandatory public school class to teach them how to manage their online reputations and the real life consequences of their online actions.

Uh, just an observation...that's not an account, it's a facade.

Seriously, if you have to go through that much trouble in your personal life just to not be misrepresented in any way whatsoever, why do you even fucking bother. Just use a damn LinkedIn account and be done. You're presenting the same kind of professional fake front there too.

And to be quite honest (pun intended), in the ever-increasing world of false fronts being presented everywhere we look, I'm hopeful that mankind will still respect someone who can be genuinely real. Otherwise, what's the point of living.

Re:Hmm (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42635467)

I am really puzzled that people don’t see that this is going in a really dangerous direction. Less than a decade ago there would have been a huge uproar if governments and/or corporations tried to map everyone’s connections and interests; now a huge portion of the populace is doing it for free. If a service like this is ‘free’ then it is you that are the product. I do participate in one ONLINE social network; linkd-in makes sense to me as a worthwhile transaction. I share my work history and colleagues in exchange for the possibility of continued gainful employment. So in summary, I’m saying that it isn’t that I don’t see any purpose in sharing this information it is that I don’t think it is worth NOTHING, and I can guaranty that Google and Facebook agree with me.

Re:Hmm (1)

anagama (611277) | about a year and a half ago | (#42636971)

FB
FBI

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42637005)

Its a convenient tool that makes it easy and fun to post up your life in the form of picture and video albums with commentary threads on a fancy bulletin board for your friends & family to enjoy. A major problem is that way too many people get access to too much personal detail. fb is a corporation - with all that entails. They are not out there to protect an individual's privacy. Quite the contrary. People just don't think in many instances. Its human stupidity. i.e. the world's coral reefs are dying, and marine life is crashing - most severely now. in just one human generation, the coral reefs are rapidly going extinct - along with most of the aquatic life they support. Are people thinking about that at all? No they are not.

Re:Hmm (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42635683)

t what point will it become awkward to say state I don't use Facebook

It has already reached that point. There are many employers who look at the lack of a Facebook profile as a warning sign, and will pass you over in favor of a "better adjusted" candidate.

Want to be invited to the things your friends are doing? Better be on Facebook.

Re:Hmm (2)

stafil (1220982) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635717)

Don't you follow the news? Apparently not having a Facebook account it's a sign you are a psychopath!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2184658/Is-joining-Facebook-sign-youre-psychopath-Some-employers-psychologists-say-suspicious.html [dailymail.co.uk]

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42636159)

This article is basically just a sensationalist piece (shocking, given that it's written by the daily fail /sarcasm) telling us that lots of psychopaths don't have a lot of friends. It seems to ignore the fact that most "friends" on facebook are not actually friends but acquaintances and other contacts. A person can have a profile with 100+ friends but not have a single friend IRL. Heck, I have several facebook accounts. Most of them have complete BS lives.

Re:Hmm (1)

PartyBoy!911 (611650) | about a year and a half ago | (#42638135)

At least something that's true, I am a psychopath and proud of it!

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42635761)

It already is, since as a user of such site, you can choose to use a fake name, not share details, and just stay in touch with friends and events. To not want any of that just makes one look anti-social. I throw parties where 50 people show up and at most 2 of them don't have facebook. The ones who don't use it typically correspond with antisicoal people. The privacy freaks are still on there, just with fake names and such.

Re:Hmm (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635887)

What about those of us that do not want to participate in these things? At what point will it become awkward to say state I don't use Facebook, or will it just become some terrible

About the same time toilets come "standard" with IP enabled cameras.

Re:Hmm (1)

theRunicBard (2662581) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635913)

I don't use a facebook and have seen no practical consequence. I do miss people's birthdays but frankly, with 500+ friends, odds are I would have forgotten to wish them a happy birthday anyway. Doesn't mean much to just post it on their wall. Below there are some comments saying that employers will look at the lack of a facebook as a warning sign. I can't say I'm an expert on the topic, but I've personally never encountered anything of the sort. No employer has ever asked me for my facebook and I doubt they have the time to look everyone up with hundreds of job applications anyway. In fact, I've seen the opposite. Not having a facebook is seen as some of my friends as being hip and cool. I'm not saying I'm fond of this behavior, but I have heard some people say things like, "Oh, yeah, I don't use Facebook. I feel like it devalues human interaction, you know?" And then they start talking about the latest bands no one has heard of :) Basically, what I'm trying to say is that my life without Facebook is nothing but sunshine and kittens. Come on over! Grass is greener and you get more done!

Re:Hmm (3, Insightful)

kheldan (1460303) | about a year and a half ago | (#42636179)

You're implying that this doesn't already happen. It does happen. Personally I don't care, if people want to look at me funny because I don't have a goddamn Facebook account anymore, then they can go get fucked. I don't want to share; deal with it. That being said: If someone I've met is so interested in my life, they can damned well spend time with me in person doing so. If they don't want to do that, then maybe they're not worth knowing.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42636215)

::whisper::"He is not a socialist like us.."::whisper

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42636365)

At what point will it become awkward to say state I don't use Facebook, or will it just become some terrible social stigma ::whisper::"He doesn't have a social account.."::/whisper::

Can't tell if white people problems, or just plain old first world problems.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42636621)

Well, I know one person who was fired for not having a FB account.

HR came down to the factory floor one morning and said everybody had to list their FB accounts on the sheet of paper in the break room by the end of the day. Not having an account, he didn't put one down. Next morning, he got grabbed as he came in, sat down at a PC, and told to log in to his FB account. When he told them he didn't have one, they said, "Well, I think we've found the person posting all that crap about the company," and fired him on the spot. Since he was only a temp, he didn't have any legal recourse, nor the money to pursue a slander case against them.

Since then, I have an account, which makes me look like a perfectly bland family man with no controversial attitudes whatsoever. I can hand it out to anyone who's likely to turn on someone who appears different. Since I've got the kind of extended family who post about everything up to and including unusual bowel movements, it's also turned out to be useful to get notice that someone has made it a matter of public record that I once wet my pants as a 2 year old. (Long story, but I ended up having to clarify to someone that it happened when I was 2, not 42. If I hadn't know what they had misread on FB, I'd likely have come across as someone trying to deny being an alcoholic or similar.) For my own rare posts, I act as though everything I type is going to be used against me in court some day. FB doesn't fit my definition of "social" and I don't treat it that way.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42639209)

Cool story, bro.

Re:Hmm (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year and a half ago | (#42637643)

What about those of us that do not want to participate in these things? At what point will it become awkward to say state I don't use Facebook, or will it just become some terrible social stigma ::whisper::"He doesn't have a social account.."::/whisper::

Just create an account then. Just because you have an account doesn't mean you're forced to provide it with personal information. Or forced to actually USE it. Facebook has no power to compel you to post all your photos on it, or to post every little thing that happened on your day, or whatever.

My account is pretty barren - I just use it every now and again to do a few things, but there's very little information on there. I don't do games, I don't do status updates, I don't do pokes, I do nothing.

It's just like Google. Despite Google asking me for my phone number every time I log in, I just hunt for the skip button (which I have to admit is getting increasingly hard - I might just have to use my Google Voice number).

Re:Hmm (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#42638477)

What about those of us that do not want to participate in these things? At what point will it become awkward to say state I don't use Facebook, or will it just become some terrible social stigma ::whisper::"He doesn't have a social account.."::/whisper::

Do what I do. Make a FB account. Put a picture of something instead of your own (I did Bob Dobbs JR.), then log in maybe once a year or so.

So if someone i know wants to friend me, they can. Relatives friend me. It's great, because I get to ignore them. My relatives have my FB info, they seem to forget to ask me for my RL phone number and stuff. This way, I do NOT get bothered.

FB has become my way to avoid people that might call me otherwise.

Isn't there a fallacy in this? (2)

checkitout (546879) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635353)

How often do you listen to your friends recommendations right now? How often are they right for you?

You can be friends with a lot of people, and have different tastes in all kinds of things: music, food, movies, doctors, cars, clothing, ... etc.

Re:Isn't there a fallacy in this? (4, Insightful)

MLCT (1148749) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635601)

There are many many flaws. It won't work, and they only reason they are trying to make it work is because it is the *only* possible long term sustainable revenue generation mechanism for them, and they know it.

But, as you say, it is logically broken. Further to it being broken, they risk destroying the function of the entire place that encourage people to go there ATM if it becomes some sort of recommendation/yelp market where pressure to share everything you buy, eat, listen to and watch takes over. Indeed ironically enough, google+ is actually a better platform for this to remotely work, as there is more of a culture of people grouping around topics they like rather than seeing the place as a real-life friend noticeboard/inbox.

But we can observe from the sidelines as fb try and fail. Watching the media fawn over MZ is much like watching how they fawned over people like Lance Armstrong 5+ years ago - for those who have a decent amount of knowledge it is clear that there are fraudsters at work - but the media are not interested in destroying the story. By keeping it alive they can file page after page of copy.

Re:Isn't there a fallacy in this? (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635867)

Most people are still missing the point. Facebook sell ads. Everything Facebook does is about either selling more ads or being able to charge more for displaying ads. Their only possible long term revenue stream is advertising.

What do web advertisers want? They want metrics. If you search for movies, or pizza recommendations etc and blow by the page right away they know something about the quality of the targeting algorithms. If you hang out on the page a long time before making any more http requests, chances are they are driving the right data toward you.

Facebook wants to be able to tell their ad clients, that if they wish to target a demographic like male homosexual African American Jews who read comic books, Facebook can effectively do that and Facebook won't be billing them for lots of ad views show to people who really are white satanic single mothers who read about witchcraft.

Re:Isn't there a fallacy in this? (1)

MLCT (1148749) | about a year and a half ago | (#42636005)

I think pretty much everyone on here knows that - to the extent that when I say that search is the only possible long term revenue stream for fb, I am taking it as read that everyone knows that is in relation to advertisements. There is no other mass-market revenue stream for non-physical inconsequential goods or services.

Re:Isn't there a fallacy in this? (1)

way2trivial (601132) | about a year and a half ago | (#42646711)

membership fees?

the 900 lb gorilla can demand things the 80lb pre-teen cannot.

my wife would pay $5.00 a month, no question
I woudn't, also no question..

how many would---- is the question

Re:Isn't there a fallacy in this? (1)

Dr Herbert West (1357769) | about a year and a half ago | (#42636011)

Good point. The great thing about socializing in RL is the chance to be exposed to difference. That's one of the benefits of going away to college.

I wonder what this flattening/homogenization of socializing will do to the way people socialize in the long term, especially with kids now that are growing up with social media being the default method of interacting.

So (1)

buravirgil (137856) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635361)

Take the road less traveled.

Oh, it's a test alright (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42635369)

It's the kind of test that is used to separate dumb people from smart people and then to separate private information from the dumb people.

The Socialist Network (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42635371)

A scene from the Oscar-winning movie, The Socialist Network: [dreamwidth.org]

The USSR national anthem plays in the background as Mark Zuckerberg, wearing a star-pinned beret and a Che Guevara shirt, reports to the Politburo in an awful fake Russian accent.

"The ten year plan is working, Comrades. The capitalists give us all of their personal information, and when the signal comes we can round them up and deport them to the re-education camps. Then our glorious doctrine shall rule the world! Ha ha ha ha ha!"

Online Income (-1, Offtopic)

mihahalu (2819363) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635437)

like Melvin said I'm amazed that a mother can earn $5048 in 1 month on the computer. did you look at this web link http://www.cloud65.com/ [cloud65.com]

Easier for hate groups to find local victims, now. (4, Insightful)

Artifex (18308) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635525)

Try a search for "gay people in Kenya," for example.

I don't know if these people all made the mistake of thinking the "interested in" sections of their profiles would not be publicly visible by default, or whether they set them public but were relying on the obscurity of only friends looking them up. Perhaps some made their accounts years ago, and haven't kept up with the ever-eroding privacy on this site that requires you to go back and re-specify as private some things that used to be private by default. The point is, it hasn't been this easy before to just search for masses of people based on one common trait.

Whether it's being gay [an orientation (not just a set of activities) still actively punishable by death or jail time in many countries], atheist or minority religion in a fundamentalist country, or some other minority that can be profiled ("people who like red hair in London" -- only partly joking, "gingers" do get bullied), a lot of people are about to find out what Facebook Feature Creep really means.

Re:Easier for hate groups to find local victims, n (4, Funny)

dkf (304284) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635571)

So, FB are finally getting around to putting the creepy in feature creep?

Re:Easier for hate groups to find local victims, n (1, Insightful)

makomk (752139) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635673)

A couple of years ago, Facebook decided to make everyone's interests public [eff.org] . Not just public by default either - there's no longer any way of restricting who can view your interests, or your hometown, or your work and education history, or which pages you've liked. All of that is now unconditionally public, and all of it is now searchable too.

Re:Easier for hate groups to find local victims, n (1, Informative)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635993)

Lies.

Hometown ,work, education history - all have a little widget next to them that you can use to select what audience can see them. Pages you like can only be controlled on a per-category basis (of which "interests" is one), but you can still choose whether to make them public or not. And it's only searchable if it's public.

Re:Easier for hate groups to find local victims, n (2)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42636271)

Falsehood modded insightful, verifiable truth modded down. Gotta love this place.

Re:Easier for hate groups to find local victims, n (1)

Dr Herbert West (1357769) | about a year and a half ago | (#42636021)

They're more than welcome to check out my hometown (arkham, massachusets) or see where I went to school (Miskatonic U), or where I went to high school (sunnydale high).

Re:Easier for hate groups to find local victims, n (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about a year and a half ago | (#42636831)

Are you knowingly posting lies or are you not aware that what you say is false because you don't use facebook?

Re:Easier for hate groups to find local victims, n (2)

martin-boundary (547041) | about a year and a half ago | (#42636829)

Try a search for "gay people in Kenya," for example.

Nobody cares about gays. If you're looking to point out the evils of facebook stalking technology, don't point out minority groups in a country most people couldn't place on a map. Point out instead that kids are now fair game for stalking. *That* is an argument against Facebook that the soccer moms and politicians will get behind 100%.

what Facebook Feature Creep really means... (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year and a half ago | (#42637555)

Re: what Facebook Feature Creep really means...
.
My best guess as to what Facebook Feature Creep will mean about one month from now, when the next Facebook update occurs is:
.
Facebook Featured Creep: This week, we highlight and feature Facebook's Creep of the Week -- the person or corporate person who has done the most stalking or creeping or creeping out of others. Please note that Facebook itself, having already become Creep of the Century and Creep of the Millennium, is NOT in contention for the Facebook Featured Creep of the Week award.

;>)

There's no way (1)

ozduo (2043408) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635527)

that I'll share my virtual girlfriend. she's mine, all mine!!!

Re:There's no way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42635655)

that I'll share my virtual girlfriend. she's mine, all mine!!!

Search for: "People who are cool with sharing their (real) girlfriend"

Boy, I miss the past (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42635631)

Remember when we naively thought computers would allow us to live the leisure society as all the menial tasks would be done by computers, just like shoveling is done by machine these days? Instead we have the workweek from before the Industrial Revolution with computerized trivialities replacing real, actual worth.

How do I get off this planet?

Re:Boy, I miss the past (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42635935)

How do I get off this planet?

Death, and hope the afterlife isn't ghosts or reincarnation.

Great for getting others' login credentials? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42635633)

So if I want to get someone's login for a site, I can just search FB for the answers to personal questions...favorite movie, first car, birthplace, etc.

Quick! Foam At The Mouth! Panic! (3, Interesting)

rueger (210566) | about a year and a half ago | (#42635685)

Well, perhaps not.

Arguably "privacy" does not mean what it might have forty years ago. Some of that is related directly to the way that Internet technology can retain data, and the ways that that data can be searched and manipulated.

That is something to be watched, and I've found myself more and more cautious about what I post on-line, but it's also a lot of what makes the modern Internet so damned useful.

I like it that Google usually can guess what I need. I like it that Amazon can suggest books or music that I actually would like to buy. I like that my smartphone is such a phenomenally handy tool, one that I use many times each day, and that would be nowhere near as useful without the might of Google behind it.

Hell, I like that I'm automagically logged into Slashdot every time I open up the site in my browser. It's handy.

Still, despite all of this, I do find Facebook's latest "creep" to be a bit uncomfortable. And yes, I'm one of those people who trusts Google, but who somehow don't trust Facebook. Hence the vast difference between what I'll trust to my Gmail account, and what I'll post to Facebook.

Still, despite the above, you have to accept that people's definition of "privacy" has changed. When I was growing up every house had an album full of photographs. If you came to visit our house we might show it to you, or we might not.

Now I have relatives who have literally thousands upon thousands of baby pictures, kid pictures, family pictures, videos, and God knows what else all posted to Facebook and accessible to hundreds of people. By their standards this is normal, and OK.

Instead of foaming at the mouth, or shrieking that no-one should ever be part of Facebook!!!, we should be figuring out how to manage a reasonable level of privacy in an age that will include Google, and Facebook, and all of those other fun and useful sites that we love.

ps - I can recall, back in the seventies and eighties, knowing people who refused to own a telephone - their arguments sounded pretty much the same.

Re:Quick! Foam At The Mouth! Panic! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42635723)

You SHOULD trust Google and not Facebook. Google has shown themselves to be a remarkably responsible company, has always stood for a free and open web, and regularly makes decisions that de-emphasize profit in favor of user-centricity.

Facebook's stated that their entire goal in existence is to get everyone to make every piece of data about themselves public.

It's no surprise that Facebook keeps "un-hiding" user data - that's their entire purpose.

Re:Quick! Foam At The Mouth! Panic! (0)

kheldan (1460303) | about a year and a half ago | (#42636273)

we should be figuring out how to manage a reasonable level of privacy in an age that will include Google, and Facebook, and all of those other fun and useful sites that we love.

There IS no "reasonable level of privacy" because there is MONEY involved in all this, BIG money. MEMO: Facebook and other for-profit corporations do not care about you and your rights, they only care about their profits. They'd sell your body parts if they thought they could get away with it, they're sure as shit not going to scruple selling your personal information regardless of how you feel about it -- or more to the point, how they're working overtime to convince/indoctrinate you that it's OK to give away your personal information. You want to do that, that's your business, but I'll have no part of it anymore.

Privacy (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42636719)

Arguably "privacy" does not mean what it might have forty years ago

Argues: No. Privacy means exactly what it used to mean. What's confusing you is that you have a lot less of it now, and that a lot of people -- perhaps including you -- are unaware of what they've lost.

Failbook is for fucktards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42635711)

Failbook is only using social search to track every move of their products and then sell the data to the highest bidder. After that Failbook will require social security numbers in their entirety for "extra security" and keep those numbers in a location that will be easily pwned by a script kiddie. The Failbook lusers will gleefully give them their social security numbers over to Failbook so they can keep playing their precious Farmville. Oh well let the fucktarded sheeple use their Failbook and continue to blindly trust social tracking media because once social search is activated and they start requiring SS#s mass identity theft will occur and only then will the fucktarded sheeple realize they'd been pwned, but it will be too late as the lives millions of sheeple will be destroyed permanently.

Facebook will eventually be useless for employers (1)

knorthern knight (513660) | about a year and a half ago | (#42637089)

A few years ago, kids assumed that "what happens on Facebook stays on Facebook". This emboldened kids to post stuff they wouldn't normally say in public. That's no longer true. Moms and dads and grandparents and employers are on FB and demanding to be friended. Hiring managers not only scan public profiles, they demand paswords to see the private stuff. The response is to fake up public profiles http://yro.slashdot.org/story/08/02/01/1618215/online-reputation-management-to-keep-your-nose-clean [slashdot.org]

Facebook stupidity will filter out the bottom of the barrel out of the job market. But expect to see more and more bland conformist "employment-friendly" profiles that don't really reflect the person. Smart kids will go back to texting/phoning/email for real communications.

why would it be creepy (1)

johnwerneken (74428) | about a year and a half ago | (#42638031)

If someone had the desire and the resources, at least as to roads I've walked since they had both of those, sure they could make a list. So it's already possible. Or if I generally have them beside me when I walk, they'd either know or be able to mostly guess correctly, so I'm used to at least someone being able to do that. What does it matter if you all can? I chose what affects me, what happens in the universe or is done by others matters not very much at all...

Can FB do no wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42638577)

I'm waiting for the day when Facebook makes an Instagram-like mistake (oh, the irony). I left that place after getting sick of having to fix my privacy settings after website updates. Now the social pressure is making me consider Google+. I have an account that some Thai stalker discovered, but I have full control in keeping info from him. Long story short: I used a weird username that turned out to be a Thai girl's name. He found me on FB and G+ way too easy, even without that username attached.

FB doesn't respect my privacy, but Google does (for now).

I refuse to participate with a social network that after years of doing so STILL changes my privacy settings behind my back.

Good idea (1)

Fuzzums (250400) | about a year ago | (#42639549)

This will only speed up the development of that highly anticipated private encrypted decentralized social thing site concept idea

If it still exists.

Don't care (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about a year ago | (#42639611)

Don't care, don't have Facebook account for just because of this kind of crap. Did I mention lately that I hate Apple, too? Ya, I guess I did in an earlier post.

Facebook (1)

gosgog (2539562) | about a year and a half ago | (#42644277)

I originally listed myself in Facebook some years back because those around me said it was interesting, however, I find it to be more annoying than interesting. But..my kids, my grankids, my adopted family and kids all seem to spend time constantly with it. I'm busy using the net for other things so I don't spend enough time with it to really understand it and those hundreds & hundreds of folks who all seem to want to be friends....well I wish I could easily dump them with one click. I use it only to check who from my family, relatives and friends that are showing up in my email for various reasons. I thought of dumping out of it, but because they're in it I haven't and I guess I'm apologizing for not going to it frequently enough, but time is a major factor for me and I'm not really sure nowadays what I'm doing with it!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>