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 To Overhaul Data Use Policy

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the all-your-data-are-belong-to-us dept.

Advertising 216

dryriver writes "The new Facebook advertising policy: 'Our goal is to deliver advertising and other commercial or sponsored content that is valuable to our users and advertisers. In order to help us do that, you agree to the following: You give us permission to use your name, profile picture, content, and information in connection with commercial, sponsored, or related content (such as a brand you like) served or enhanced by us. This means, for example, that you permit a business or other entity to pay us to display your name and/or profile picture with your content or information, without any compensation to you. If you have selected a specific audience for your content or information, we will respect your choice when we use it.' — Facebook also made it clear that the company can use photo recognition software to correctly identify people on the network. It said: 'We are able to suggest that your friend tag you in a picture by scanning and comparing your friend's pictures to information we've put together from your profile pictures and the other photos in which you've been tagged.' — It [Facebook] said it was also clarifying that some of that information reveals details about the device itself such as an IP address, operating system or – surprisingly – a mobile phone number. The Register has asked Facebook to clarify this point as it's not clear from the revised policy wording if a mobile number is scooped up without an individual's knowledge or as a result of it being previously submitted by that person to access some of the company's services. Importantly, Facebookers are not required to cough up their mobile phone number upon registering with the service. At time of writing, Facebook was yet to respond with comment."

cancel ×

216 comments

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

A relevant link: (5, Informative)

twjordan (88132) | about a year ago | (#44735347)

https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-site-governance/section-by-section-summary-of-updates/10153200989785301

The post is pretty bad without a link to the actual updates. ./ has fallen a bit.

Re: A relevant link: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735595)

./ has fallen a bit.

./ has fallen a bit further.

Re: A relevant link: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735881)

It's /. you dumbass.

Re: A relevant link: (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | about a year ago | (#44736043)

you missed that by one post... The post you replied to was actually a witty post about "./", much like the one you were hoping to create.

Re:A relevant link: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735751)

You might be at the wrong website. This is SlashDot, not DotSlant.

Re:A relevant link: (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about a year ago | (#44736057)

https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-site-governance/section-by-section-summary-of-updates/10153200989785301

The post is pretty bad without a link to the actual updates. ./ has fallen a bit.

Poor Sarah Rose and the rest that posted they will not allow that, they are posting under that ToS so of course they do.

I want nothing to do with facebook, I don't trust Mark Zuckerberg and want no part of him.

I made mention on /. that I disabled my account 4 years ago but it wasn't, I went through the motions but it claimed I could revive my account by logging in again. Someone replied to me how to really delete your facebook account. I logged in with my old info and there it was -my account I closed out ages ago; hopefully it's gone now.

I have blocked Facebook at the router level but still able to read that ToS, many lines in my HOSTS file deal with facebook yet I still get through. Recently I've hit facebook pages which shortly claim I need to log in to read, ain't going to happen; nut I figure it's too late my info has been posted, Not sure what I posted, I'd never give a real name, address or any real info, but I did post a picture.

Re:A relevant link: (2)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year ago | (#44736473)

Are you sure you did it right in your hosts file? You should go ask APK just to make sure, nobody knows hosts files better than he does.

Re:A relevant link: (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about a year ago | (#44736823)

Are you sure you did it right in your hosts file? You should go ask APK just to make sure, nobody knows hosts files better than he does.

Yes, thanks for that. I do run APK once in a while to update my HOSTS file (sits at 4.377 MB now)
but this was at the Router level, blocked sites (I have a HotSpot available to whoever).

After the reply I went and added it to the HOSTS file itself and it's blocked. I just reinstalled Windows 7 this last week so still tweaking it.

Re:A relevant link: (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44736065)

The post is pretty bad without a link to the actual updates. ./ has fallen a bit.

It was bought out and is now a corporate tool for Dice. All the original editors have moved on. It's just a dead husk now.

Like Facebook soon will be; I'm advising all my friends to turn their profile pics all black and delete all personal photos and "likes", unsub from all groups, etc. Basically, gut your profile and delete all your past posts, etc. Just leave a stub.

Re:A relevant link: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44736201)

And you think they don't keep all versions of every piece of information?

Re:A relevant link: (5, Funny)

davester666 (731373) | about a year ago | (#44736099)

What a huge surprise.

Their existing data use policy is too restrictive.

It would be simpler to just have:

We promise not to use your data in the following ways:

Re:A relevant link: (3, Insightful)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about a year ago | (#44736357)

They've repeated lied in the past and will continue to lie in the future.

Understand if you post on Facebook, you have no privacy.
Even if other people post about you on facebook, your privacy is going to be impaired.

Understand *you are the product being sold*.

It's a challenge for me. I finally withdrew from facebook. It's taken a while for people to start emailing me. At first they were annoyed that I needed special handling and they couldn't just set the event up on facebook. But now there are more of us avoiding facebook so email is coming back.

I wouldn't have withdrawn if they hadn't been such weasels about privacy settings.

Thanks (0)

oldhack (1037484) | about a year ago | (#44735351)

The Facebook users beware. Nobody forced you to use it.

That's the end of USEFUL discussion.

Re:Thanks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735419)

The Facebook users beware. Nobody forced you to use it.

You jest, but what happens when government services start requiring facebook login?

Re:Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735825)

The Facebook users beware. Nobody forced you to use it.

You jest, but what happens when government services start requiring facebook login?

That's nothing, what happens when government services start requiring always on webcams in your home?

Re:Thanks (1)

pecosdave (536896) | about a year ago | (#44735963)

It's like a blend of 1984 and Brave New World. Just like 1984 they will be monitoring you through your real life telescreen [iclarified.com] but like Brave New World it won't actually be forbidden not to have one, but the people will no longer have the motivation to think or act outside what they were indoctrinated to do.

Re:Thanks (1)

meerling (1487879) | about a year ago | (#44736159)

They eventually will, it's cheaper than them providing their own monitoring equipment/bugs.

Re:Thanks (1)

Ultracrepidarian (576183) | about a year ago | (#44736697)

Black electricians tape?

Re:Thanks (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735465)

First, that wasn't a discussion. Beyond that: we could discuss how this plays into Facebook's long-term prospects; how this plays into user's expectations; whether this sort of thing would be likely if Facebook wasn't public and had no aspirations to be public; whether this is actually legal and whether it should be legal -- for instance, changing terms to include your name and likeness in advertising would seem egregious if a brick and mortar store had that as a requirement for entering the premises; and probably plenty of other issues come to mind to other people.

Re:Thanks (4, Informative)

zippthorne (748122) | about a year ago | (#44735541)

Nobody forced your friends to use it either, but no one is stopping them from using it either, and by some of their possible actions, you're using it whether you want to or not....

Re:Thanks (5, Funny)

SGT CAPSLOCK (2895395) | about a year ago | (#44736469)

It's sadly the case...

One of my friends has a wife who decided it'd be cute to post pictures of me on her Facebook account despite my telling her plainly that I didn't want that to happen. I got the pleasure of sitting and watching her do it, and giggle about it throughout my protests.

Nothing can be done to stop it. It's not like I'm going to steal her camera and delete her pictures. So, I'm in their system, despite being really well known as the paranoid "they're out to get me" guy to pretty much everyone who knows me.

No matter how careful we are individually, the ignorance of others certainly can affect us strongly these days...

Re:Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44736739)

It's sadly the case...

One of my friends has a wife who decided it'd be cute to post pictures of me on her Facebook account despite my telling her plainly that I didn't want that to happen. I got the pleasure of sitting and watching her do it, and giggle about it throughout my protests.

Nothing can be done to stop it. It's not like I'm going to steal her camera and delete her pictures.

You could just take the camera and beat her to death with it ;-)

That's not entirely accurate... (4, Informative)

runeghost (2509522) | about a year ago | (#44735697)

The Facebook users beware. Nobody forced you to use it.

That's the end of USEFUL discussion.

Facebook is reported to have been creating profiles for peoplel who have never signed up. http://www.zdnet.com/anger-mounts-after-facebooks-shadow-profiles-leak-in-bug-7000017167/ [zdnet.com]

And that is also not entirely accurate... (3, Informative)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year ago | (#44735893)

Thanks for the (interesting and scary) link - but that isn't quite what that article says. According to that article, Facebook is compiling shadow profiles of signed-up users to accumulate information they expressly did not add to their public profile, such as phone numbers and email addresses. (And who knows what else...)

Another reason not to do Facebook, though, so I won't. I do maintain an interest, however, because my wife is an active FB user, on the grounds that she says she never posts anything that could be useful for any kind of miscreant. She is not a techie, though, and I have trouble explaining to her that it isn't as simple as that.

Re:Thanks (2)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about a year ago | (#44735713)

Yes, yes, and we'll continue to use fake pictures, fake names, and build a profile of lies because they can't really stop that either.

Facebook is a worthless social tool, there's no reason to be honest. Meanwhile Linked-In is a repository of highly accurate data but it's not a lot of fun, nor does it have the mindshare facebook has. Facebook needs a new gig, it has a lot of viewers, it has very little useful facts and if pushed, they'll find it becomes increasingly factless.

Re:Thanks (2)

Lincolnshire Poacher (1205798) | about a year ago | (#44736483)

Meanwhile Linked-In is a repository of highly accurate data

Well other than all the made-up skills that people can assign to you without your involvement.

'King of France', 'Maximum Awesome', 'Knife Skills'...

Why am I being endorsed for skills and expertise I do not claim on my profile? [linkedin.com]

Re:Thanks (3, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | about a year ago | (#44735747)

12-24 year old define themselves with peer groups. At one time that meant smoking, even though no one forced anyone to smoke. It is just what one did. Before that you went to the malt shop.

Facebook for most people was a phase.I see more kids get over it earlier as their parents spend more time on it. Now companies are using it to try to reach a generation that is not on tv, and it me moving from a phase to a cost of doing business. No one forces you to cut out coupons to buy name brand products, but we do. It could be that facebook ends up being the broker of the kind of relationships that some people like to have with retail brands, in which case value will be added for some people. And the kids who like the freedom that facebooks gives them will not go away, just like when we smoked ciggarettes.

Ugh. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735355)

I don't even have a witty first post for this.

Re:Ugh. (1)

Cyfun (667564) | about a year ago | (#44735427)

How about a witty third post? :D

Re:Ugh. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735473)

Don't have that either.

Facebook really makes me want to move to a remote island and live off coconuts. Creepiest thing I've ever seen in my life.

Re: Ugh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735573)

I second that.

Re:Ugh. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735691)

Ugh. When you see the masses succumb to Facebooking, with no regard to privacy, propriety or principle, or being marginally informed, it becomes easier to see how they were sucked into the votes they cast in the past 5 years or so.

ha! (1, Flamebait)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44735369)

Hi, Mark Fucking Zuckerberg here. I own you're fucking asses, you pathetic like pukes. If I want to sell your left fucking kidney, I can do it because I'm Mark Fucking Zuckerberg and you're pathetic addicts.

Re:ha! (1)

craigminah (1885846) | about a year ago | (#44735415)

Yup...that's part of the reason I refuse to join facebook...heck, I bet the US Government (and others) are mining the crap out of facebook in search of terrorists.

Re:ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735485)

That's a 100% sure bet. How else can they keep the no-fly and gate rape lists up to date?

Re:ha! (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#44735561)

I quit Facebook (and deleted my account) several weeks ago - right after the stuff about their shadow profiles came out.

It sucks because Facebook can have its uses - it's definitely a much easier way to keep in contact with some of my friends and family that live across the US and in Europe. But, in the end, what Facebook is doing to its users just is too high a price for me to willingly pay.

What's interesting is it's been obvious for a while that Facebook is trending downward - it's the older folks (my peers) that are really keeping it going. Younger people (e.g. my daughter) mostly still have Facebook profiles, but it's no longer their primary sharing tool. Some have moved to Tumblr, some to other networks - but the tide turned a year or two ago. I'm sure Zuckerberg knew this when he was figuring out the optimal time to launch the IPO, and I'm sure it's why they're pushing harder and harder now. It's only a matter of time before they join MySpace.

Re:ha! (3, Informative)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about a year ago | (#44735587)

The shadow profile stuff came out much longer than several weeks ago. Provided is a slashdot link to a story almost 2 years old:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/18/1429223/facebook-is-building-shadow-profiles-of-non-users

Re:ha! (3, Interesting)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#44736507)

I'm talking about the more recent revelations [in.com] that came out this past June - regarding how the "friend finder" was slurping up information like your friends cell phone numbers etc. and storing that in shadow profiles (which got exposed because of the Facebook bug in their profile download tool).

The existence of Facebook and Google+ shadow profiles has indeed been known for a while.

Re:ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735605)

I'm sure they're mining the crap out of facebook too. But not exactly for counter terrorism purposes though.

Re:ha! (3, Funny)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a year ago | (#44735487)

Hi, Mark Fucking Zuckerberg here. I own you're fucking asses, you pathetic like pukes. If I want to sell your left fucking kidney, I can do it because I'm Mark Fucking Zuckerberg and you're pathetic addicts.

No, he can't do that because it would be a HIPAA violation, but just about anything else would be correct.

Re:ha! (4, Informative)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#44735527)

No, he can't do that because it would be a HIPAA violation, but just about anything else would be correct.

Nonsense.

It *might* be a HIPAA violation for him to tell everyone he sold your kidney, but HIPAA has nothing at all to do with the waiver you signed allowing his doctors to swoop in and *take* your kidney.

HIPAA is about health information privacy and has nothing to do with the fact you clicked through a Kidney Sales Agreement form...

Re:ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44736167)

I'm sorry; I thought he was talking about being pathetic addicts, rather than about kidneys. If I'm in rehab, that's not fair game for Zuckerberg to spill.

Re:ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735779)

The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

I realize you've been using that sig for quite some time now, but the changes to Facebook's data policy mean you no longer own it. All your sig are belong to fb, as evidenced by Moped Zuckerberg [s-nbcnews.com] spotted in Rome. Details in the next update to Facebook's data policy, which will be at 11.

Re:ha! (1)

hutsell (1228828) | about a year ago | (#44735721)

Hi, Mark Fucking Zuckerberg here. I own you're fucking asses, you pathetic like pukes. If I want to sell your left fucking kidney, I can do it because I'm Mark Fucking Zuckerberg and you're pathetic addicts.

That's probably a decent description of his present state of mind, considering he also supports the idea in his original business card [news.com.au] in a succinctly summarized but less eloquent form. Funnier then when it was without any hindsight about the ramifications.

Re:ha! (1)

lxs (131946) | about a year ago | (#44736727)

I don't believe you are. The real Zuck would have a cute PA correct his grammar before posting.

Re:ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44736751)

Hi, Mark Fucking Zuckerberg here. I own you're fucking asses, you pathetic like pukes. If I want to sell your left fucking kidney, I can do it because I'm Mark Fucking Zuckerberg and you're pathetic addicts.

Joke's on you dickhead. The left one is failing and cancerous. You just saved me a ton of money having it removed. Meanwhile I get to keep the good one. Fuck you, cunt!

All the extra faces :) (2)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#44735455)

http://rt.com/news/facebook-profile-picture-recognition-208/ [rt.com]
http://www.ibtimes.com/facebook-create-facial-recognition-database-profile-photos-1401665 [ibtimes.com]
Welcome to a wonderful facial recognition database for US users (vs privacy issues in Europe).
Try and forget the US government electronic surveillance program.

Re:All the extra faces :) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735535)

All the extra faeces :)

FTFY

HA! (1)

singlevalley (1368965) | about a year ago | (#44735463)

Is there still some private data that they are yet to make public? How about emails? Maybe those should be public too? Stupid FB.

/etc/hosts jokes aside (4, Informative)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a year ago | (#44735497)

Here's a real excerpt from my /etc/hosts file, saves me no end of trouble:

0.0.0.0 www.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 facebook.com
0.0.0.0 www.static.ak.fbcdn.net
0.0.0.0 static.ak.fbcdn.net
0.0.0.0 www.login.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 login.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 www.fbcdn.net
0.0.0.0 fbcdn.net
0.0.0.0 www.fbcdn.com
0.0.0.0 fbcdn.com
0.0.0.0 www.static.ak.connect.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 static.ak.connect.facebook.com

Re:/etc/hosts jokes aside (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735519)

Ooo. Thanks!

I didn't have a few of those on my hosts list. 36,872 entrys and counting!

Re:/etc/hosts jokes aside (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a year ago | (#44735709)

Other than localhost, my router and (static) printer, these are the only hosts entries I use.

Re:/etc/hosts jokes aside (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735903)

Missing from your list:
0.0.0.0 static.ak.facebook.com

Re:/etc/hosts jokes aside (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year ago | (#44735931)

It's probably preferable to use the loopback interface 127.0.0.1 rather than 0.0.0.0.

Re:/etc/hosts jokes aside (3, Informative)

0123456 (636235) | about a year ago | (#44736069)

0.0.0.0 is invalid, so should cause an immediate fail without attempting to connect. If you run a webserver on your computer, a loopback address may actually hit the webserver and require a response.

Re:/etc/hosts jokes aside (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a year ago | (#44736115)

Exactly. 0.0.0.0 doesn't get far enough down the TCP/IP stack to even get to the hardware.

Re:/etc/hosts jokes aside (1)

Ja'Achan (827610) | about a year ago | (#44736493)

I set up my own DNS server, that way all subdomains get blocked in one go. (I use maradns, it was pretty easy to set up.)

What The Fuck? (5, Insightful)

wrackspurt (3028771) | about a year ago | (#44735505)

I've never used Facebook exactly because of shit like this. I just don't get how it got so big and stays so big. Genetics? Like a different genetic strain of our species which makes hundreds of millions willing victims just as long as they get noticed and pretend friends.

Anthropology suggests each of us normally has about half a dozen close friends at any one time. About that many friends make sense when you consider the emotional and temporal investments and returns. Facebook just makes no sense. It's like people so pathetic just getting noticed no matter the reason or the cost is some twisted form of self validation.

Re:What The Fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735571)

Is that an average? Because I have way fewer than that. Heck, I barely have that many according to FB.

Re:What The Fuck? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735593)

I've never used Facebook exactly because of shit like this. I just don't get how it got so big and stays so big.

Your confusion, as you express above, can be alleviated simply by remembering that average I.Q. is 100.
That average is found at the peak of the "bell curve" which represents the distribution of I.Q. scores in
a population.

What you need to remember is this : half the population has an I.Q. of 100 or lower. This means that half the
population is not very smart, to express it in charitable terms. A lot of behavior which doesn't seem to "make
sense" can be therefore explained by the fact that a very large number of people are just plain idiots. And idiots
do idiotic things ( as Gomer Pyle might have said : "Shazam !" ).

Facebook is milking idiots. Facebook is used by idiots. That's really all there is to it. Well, except for this :

I own a smallish ( non Fortune 500 ) company. Part of the hiring process at my company involves finding out
if a prospective new hire uses Facebook. If they do use Facebook, they are not hired. Of course they are never
told that the reason they weren't hired is that they use Facebook, but there you have it. I have discovered too many
employees using Facebook on company time, and this is unacceptable. All such employees have been "weeded out"
( fired ) and we don't take on any new people of this sort.

~

Re:What The Fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735647)

Wow, I wish more companies were like that. Usually when I say I don't have facebook they think I'm either some kind of anarchist freak or just "not with it".

Re:What The Fuck? (1)

EdZep (114198) | about a year ago | (#44735743)

Sounds like a wise choice. I know Facebook isn't the only app employees might waste your time on, with their phones. Every time I see someone's employee fiddling with their phone -- usually while not providing customer service, but always while stealing paid time -- I wonder how they manage to remain employed.

Re:What The Fuck? (4, Insightful)

FireFury03 (653718) | about a year ago | (#44736591)

Sounds like a wise choice. I know Facebook isn't the only app employees might waste your time on, with their phones. Every time I see someone's employee fiddling with their phone -- usually while not providing customer service, but always while stealing paid time -- I wonder how they manage to remain employed.

Flexibility runs both ways - if you're going to be a dick and prevent employees from taking the occasional 5 minute break (because it's "stealing" from you) then they're not going to be inclined to do anything over and above their contract either. Don't expect someone to stay late to clear up some problem (because that would be you "stealing" from them) if you're never going to return the favour.

FWIW, an old employer of mine started doing the kind of shit you're suggesting - I got a massive bollocking for ending up 5 minutes late due to traffic one morning... the previous night I had stayed 2 hours late to finish some work. Needless to say, I never stayed late again, and left the company relatively soon afterwards... in fact, most of my colleagues also got pissed off with them and quit - they lost 75% of their technical staff in a 2 month period.

Re: What The Fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735817)

Employees that are allowed to take "short" Facebook breaks are supposedly more productive.

I don't "use" FB, but do have an account. Easiest way to get old friend a email addresses. Am I hired?

Re: What The Fuck? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44736179)

Employees that are allowed to take "short" Facebook breaks are supposedly more productive.

I don't "use" FB, but do have an account. Easiest way to get old friend a email addresses. Am I hired?

No, in your case, you are rejected for poor grammar. Writing skills are important, too.

Re:What The Fuck? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735843)

That sounds like a really stupid policy. Instead of trying to weasel around the issue simply ban non-work related sites on company time and tell people interviewing that that's your policy. Employees violating company policy are instantly fired. There's no reason to be sneaky about it.

There are valid uses for FB. Not everyone knows how to setup custom RSS feeds for their favorite news sites. Follow what you want and you get all their stores in one place. No need to go visit multiple websites. Sadly it's still the easiest way to share pictures among a group of semi-related people who all went on a hiking trip. The discussion coming up with the trip's time, location, drivers, etc.. and it's results (pictures, videos, etc...) are all right there in one place. Sharing baby photos with grandparents, siblings, and a few friends is still easiest on FB. Almost all email providers limit email sizes. Most people don't know how to setup personal server space to share photos. FB makes it easy. It's original purpose of letting old buddies get back in touch with you is still valid. Not everyone with a FB account uses it to constantly spam the world with their self delusions.

Re:What The Fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44736481)

I'm pretty sure GP sees activities such as sharing pictures or planning trips to be only for stupid people.

Re:What The Fuck? (3, Interesting)

Tippler (3027557) | about a year ago | (#44736247)

You seem to be postulating that the use of Facebook is indicative of low intelligence. As a recent graduate of a top 20 medical school, I can confidently say that greater than 80 percent of my peers use Facebook. The percentage is similar in my residency program. Are you saying that hundreds of at least moderately intelligent people with the motivation to go through four years of college, four years of medical school, and 3 or more years of residency are not candidates for your company because we choose to occasionally interact via an electronic medium with which you are not comfortable? If your hiring practices are subject to such idiotic generalizations, then you will stay "smallish" or go bankrupt very quickly.

Re:What The Fuck? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44736479)

You seem to be postulating that ... with which you are not comfortable?

Maybe ignorant of the issues would be a more palatable term. Does exposing the health data of any patients you may have friended by your willing use of this online tool constitute a HIPAA violation? Are you comfortable with the legal and ethical ramifications of that?

Lovely arrogance there... (5, Informative)

denzacar (181829) | about a year ago | (#44736391)

What you need to remember is this : half the population has an I.Q. of 100 or lower. This means that half the population is not very smart, to express it in charitable terms. A lot of behavior which doesn't seem to "make sense" can be therefore explained by the fact that a very large number of people are just plain idiots.

Your understanding of IQ, social interactions and your purported hiring practices match up really well.

First off... That 100 average IQ is a normalized value.
It will never change, no matter how many "stupid" people or geniuses are out there. 100 will always be average.
Now, thing with bell-shaped curves is, they have this nasty habit of being evenly distributed on both sides.
Also, there's this thing of them having 95% of all values within 2 sigma - which are in this case conveniently situated around that 100 IQ average.

What that means in real life is that 95% of people in the world fall within 2 sigma from 100 IQ.
I.e. Almost everyone is within IQ 70 and IQ 130.
Leaving ~2.5% people with IQ over 130, and just as much of those with the IQ of under 70.

Now here's the fun part. It's a bit counter intuitive, so try to keep up.
First of all, those with IQ below 70 don't really count. We're talking "definite feeble-mindedness" [wikipedia.org] there.
Those people are not what you can in any way call active members of the society.

Then comes that second sigma - those falling in that group between 70 and 85.
Within those 15 IQ points falls 14.591% of humanity. And guess what? Most of those don't count either!
Cause those ranging from 70 to 85 IQ points are what we call "borderline deficient", "borderline impaired or delayed", "well below average" or "borderline mentally retarded". [wikipedia.org]
Again... this being the place on the scale where those number really count, about two thirds of those people are closer to retarded than to plain old "stupid".
You're pretty much not interacting with them online, and very likely not in real life either.

Which leaves us with 95 - 9.7 - 47.5 = 37.5% of humanity that falls within 80 - 100 IQ range, which you might call "stupid people".
In all fairness, actual number of "stupid people" is closer to 30%, as the closer you get to that average of 100 IQ, the more people there are and there is a greater chance that many of them are closer to 100 than measured.

Now, one third of humanity MAY seem like a "very large number of people" - but they are actually a MINORITY compared to the 50% of humans who are of ABOVE AVERAGE intelligence.

So... umm... yeah... Your "arguments" about all those idiots? More like arrogance.
And that's more dangerous than plain old low intelligence cause it masquerades as wisdom creating that warm feeling of being right - even when you're completely clueless.
BTW, love the way you managed to weave in a (completely meaningless and valueless) comparison of YOUR company with those on F500 list though nobody asked for it AND though you're posting anonymously.

Arrogance will also leave you safely inside your cocoon of cluelessness regarding human interactions beyond those that you can hire out or were born into.
Or you would have figured out or guessed by know that people tend to have these groups of people called families, friends, acquaintances, school friends etc.
None of whose IQ or personal preferences or simply lack of paranoia regarding privacy they can't control nor can they just cut out those persons from their life or ignore them when they reappear in their life.
And many of those people just happen to find social media like Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr etc. as highly useful/entertaining/practical/fun.

And if you're really limiting your own pool of potential talent by adding such an arbitrary limitation as you say you do - you might as well be chucking out all people who's favorite color is blue.
Or green. Or whatever.

But hey... Do keep up with that.
I'm certain your competition has nothing against the idea of you limiting your own options.
I sure love it.

Re:What The Fuck? (1)

multiben (1916126) | about a year ago | (#44736627)

First of all, some of the smartest people on the planet have facebook accounts - it is not solely the domain of "stupid" people and "idiots" as you put it. There are also plenty of people who have enough self discipline that they are able to refrain from using facebook while they are at work and do not spend every waking moment taking selfies and posting pics of food they are about to eat. That you are unable to see this and instead implement a blanket hiring policy which eliminates candidates based on their social media preferences suggests that you yourself, sir, are in fact an idiot.

Re:What The Fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735755)

It got big because it was about connecting with people. (Some people want more than six friends.) It turned to shit when it became about making money.

Re:What The Fuck? (1)

TheSeatOfMyPants (2645007) | about a year ago | (#44735953)

It's because "friend" refers also to relatives, classmates, or anyone else the person wants to keep in touch with, which would total far more than their close friends.

As for how it became so large, it's a combination of a few things:

-- The company started out by luring in university undergraduates as a way of coordinating schedules, knowing what was going on with one another, and so forth when each of them had a reason or the interest required to look at their "friends."

-- When open to the public, it became the first turnkey service that allowed people to similarly keep in touch and interact without dealing with technical jargon-laced configurations or a variety of different programs/services (even if they weren't interested in using more than one or two of its services). That made it perfect for both the older people that find things like "SMTP server" confusing & intimidating, and the adults that have the knowledge but simply didn't want to deal with the extra hassle of configuring several different programs.

Re:What The Fuck? (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44736255)

I've never used Facebook exactly because of shit like this. I just don't get how it got so big and stays so big.

IMO they overtook Myspace because they actually respected the users more with regards to advertising. Facebook was a real step down from Myspace in features and usability at the time (once again IMO), except for one thing, the intrusive advertising on Myspace. You would look at your little sister's page, and it would show giant ads for things like adult-friend-finder. Who wants to see that?

If the advertising gets too intrusive, people will leave, but Facebook has a good system in place to let them know how users respond to various things, so they will probably push it right to the limit of where people want to quit, but not past.

*shudder* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735539)

This makes me shudder. I am so *very* glad I dont have a Facebook account, for reasons just like this.

so glad i never signed up for that shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735563)

seriously spooky shit man, fuck zuckerberg

AC for life, mother fuckers!

Facebook.com to shutdown and apologise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735585)

Oh no, this was just a dream. Don't mind me.

Terms of Use (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about a year ago | (#44735609)

I wonder what would happen if you sent a nice letter to Facebook's CS department, copied to Legal, saying:

You have stated that you wish to use my likeness in commercial content that will earn you revenue. If you wish to do so, my standard rate is $10 per view of said likeness. You may not use my likeness without compensation to me. By using my likeness you agree to pay my standard rate for each view. If you do not wish to pay, you must refrain from using my likeness. By using my likeness you agree that the terms of this agreement and the rates stated therein apply to you, that you will pay them, that this agreement supersedes any and all prior agreements and that no future agreements may supersede this agreement without an express agreement in writing between myself and Facebook.

Re:Terms of Use (2)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year ago | (#44735641)

I wonder what would happen if you sent a nice letter to Facebook's CS department, copied to Legal, saying:

You have stated that you wish to use my likeness in commercial content that will earn you revenue. If you wish to do so, my standard rate is $10 per view of said likeness. You may not use my likeness without compensation to me. By using my likeness you agree to pay my standard rate for each view. If you do not wish to pay, you must refrain from using my likeness. By using my likeness you agree that the terms of this agreement and the rates stated therein apply to you, that you will pay them, that this agreement supersedes any and all prior agreements and that no future agreements may supersede this agreement without an express agreement in writing between myself and Facebook.

You forget, you don't control their ToS. If you don't agree, don't use it, period. What's repugnant about these changes is the fact that Facebook buries their opt-out settings or as the NYT reported, disables your ability to opt out. With the usual weasel-clause in most ToS for sites, "We reserve the right to change our ToS at any time without your consent..." you have little choice but to stop using them if you disagree. I think in the case of Facebook, that's something everybody should do, including Google+ although even Google is making it more difficult to get around that clap trap as well.

Re:Terms of Use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735749)

I wonder what would happen if you sent a nice letter to Facebook's CS department, copied to Legal, saying:

You have stated that you wish to use my likeness in commercial content that will earn you revenue. If you wish to do so, my standard rate is...

You forget, you don't control their ToS.

But I do control their ToS. I saved a copy of the ToS page to my local drive, added a <BASE HREF> tag at the top so everything would still point to Facebook's servers, added a clause that states "by continuing to provide you with this service, Facebook grants you the right to change its Terms of Service whenever you want without its consent," reloaded the page and clicked Agree. Isn't that what everyone else does? End users, I mean, not Facebook. Perhaps I missed the point of this game. Does Facebook not want to play anymore?

Re:Terms of Use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735915)

But I do control their ToS. I saved a copy of the ToS page to my local drive, added a <BASE HREF> tag at the top so everything would still point to Facebook's servers, added a clause that states "by continuing to provide you with this service, Facebook grants you the right to change its Terms of Service whenever you want without its consent," reloaded the page and clicked Agree. Isn't that what everyone else does? End users, I mean, not Facebook. Perhaps I missed the point of this game. Does Facebook not want to play anymore?

Sounds a lot like the credit card guy:

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/updated-russian-man-turns-tables-on-bank-changes-fine-print-in-credit-card-agreement-then-sues-now-settles-cm267708

Re:Terms of Use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44736123)

Yes, but what about those of us that don't have an account with them? From what I'm reading, if somebody has tagged us in a photo, they're claiming they can use the likeness. And don't forget about all the spying they do on random third parties via those damned like buttons.

Re:Terms of Use (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about a year ago | (#44736311)

That's why I put that part in about this agreement superseding any and all prior agreements, and about any agreement needing to be in writing to supersede it. That's to make it so if they use my likeness they agree that this agreement, not their TOS, controls (one of the terms they agreed to is that my terms supersede the TOS). And they can't claim my future use restored the TOS since they agreed they couldn't do that unless it was done in writing (their TOS isn't agreed to in writing).

They probably wouldn't pay voluntarily, but I think it'd be one of those things that'd be interesting to argue in court. Especially seeing as they can't argue that implicit agreement to my terms by use of my likeness is invalid without admitting that implicit agreement to their terms of use by use of their site is also invalid. That, of course, isn't a problem for me because if both are invalid Facebook still lacks a legal right to use my likeness. And I don't have to argue that I never agreed to their TOS, I can argue that I did (and thus have a right to access their site) but that my agreement with them superseded and modified that TOS without invalidating it. They could get around that by not using my image, in which case my terms wouldn't apply and their TOS would be in force, but in that case I still win since they have to filter me out of their advertising use.

Battle of the forms (3, Informative)

Animats (122034) | about a year ago | (#44736533)

Read up on the legal issue of a "battle of the forms". [thecontractsguy.net]

List of alternatives to facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735699)

And by that I mean anti-NSA-spying alternatives, so don't even bother listing google+
I also don't mean other social networks in general. I mean an alternative that is fairly similar to Facebook.
Thanks.

Re:List of alternatives to facebook? (2)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#44736457)

Hi AC try http://prism-break.org/ [prism-break.org]
Under Social networking the site lists https:buddycloud.com [buddycloud.com] , https://diasporafoundation.org/ [diasporafoundation.org] http://friendica.com/ [friendica.com] http://movim.eu/ [movim.eu] http://pump.io/ [pump.io] and the https://tent.io/ [tent.io] protocol.

I win (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#44735717)

I'm not on Facebook, I never have been, and I never will be. I also have the magic ability to translate their legal garbage. Let me see...I think it's pronounced "We want to provide you with the best opportunity to MONEEEEYYYY!!!!!!" but that might be a letter or two off. Considering all circumstances, I believe that means I've done it. I win at Facebook! That's right, it was all an elaborate game that over a hundred million people lost at by being gullible and in denial. But nope, winner here!

In other words... (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about a year ago | (#44735789)

All your face are belong to us

this is the final straw for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735799)

deleted my account. gbye facebook.

Face recongnition (1)

ExCEPTION (102399) | about a year ago | (#44735805)

I uploaded 34 pictures of my two kids to Picassaweb yesterday. As soon as the pictures were uploaded, google extracted all the faces from those pictures and arranged them into three groups. One is my son's faces, one is my daughter's, the third one is two faces of my daughter which is in a slightly different angle and a little fuzzy. It asked what their names were, and scared the hell out of me.
I didn't answer the questions.

The app now asks to import non-member data (1)

TheSeatOfMyPants (2645007) | about a year ago | (#44735855)

When I had my mother's phone download the Facebook app and set it up for her yesterday, the first thing it did upon login was pop up a screen with three choices -- to not import any contact info from her phone (synced with a Google account), to import all contact data she has for Facebook friends, or import all contact data to Facebook, period. It was quite clearly not offering to merely see which contacts were on Facebook or send out invites to those that weren't.

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure it didn't offer to collect all data from her Google/Gmail contacts list when I last set it up for her several months ago... If I'm reading those choices correctly, it would mean that even if Facebook doesn't visibly plug the data into people's profiles, it would still be there for them to use behind the scenes. Obviously I told it to not import anything, but I really hope I misunderstood and leapt to the wrong conclusion.

Seriously? Fuck those guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735865)

I never have and never will give any information to Facebook.
Seriously, fuck those guys.
Choke on a dick, Zuckerberg.

Android App (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735867)

I can only assume that the iOS app is similar, but the Android app uploads not just your phone number (which is scraped without your explicit permission), but also your call history every time you log in.

Let me repeat that: Facebook uploads your entire call history every time you open their Android app.

Re:Android App (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | about a year ago | (#44736613)

I can only assume that the iOS app is similar, but the Android app uploads not just your phone number (which is scraped without your explicit permission), but also your call history every time you log in.

Let me repeat that: Facebook uploads your entire call history every time you open their Android app.

I switched to the Atrium app a few months ago, having got fed up with the intrusive ads on the official app and knowing that I could never upgrade the official app because they had massively expanded the permissions it required (there was no way I was going to give it permission to do things like see what apps were running, etc). I've been pretty please with it so far - a couple of slightly niggley bugs, but on the whole its good.

It's good that it's finally out in the open (1)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year ago | (#44735919)

Our goal is to deliver advertising and other commercial or sponsored content

Plain speaking is such a wonderful thing isn't it?

Re:It's good that it's finally out in the open (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44735949)

Thats how they make money. You want a free service, you put up with advertising.

Re:It's good that it's finally out in the open (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44736235)

Thats how they make money. You want a free service, you put up with advertising.

Fuck that shit. You use firefox with adblock plus and noscript and ghostery to disable all the fucking ads.

Re:It's good that it's finally out in the open (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | about a year ago | (#44736245)

What about the selling of souls to the devil? Surely that is their biggest business area?

Kentsel Dönüüm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44736639)

http://www.platingroup.com.tr/kentsel-donusum.html

Kentsel dönüüm, insan saln etkileyecek derecede zarar görmü yaplarn proje kapsamnda sistematik bir ekilde olas depremlere kar toprak zeminin ve üzerindeki yapnn risk deerlerinin belirlenerek, can ve mal kaybn en aza indirmek için yaplan kamusal bir çalmadr.

The product (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44736707)

If you're not paying for a product, you ARE the product. I'm quitting today.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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