The Cache: Technology Expert's Forum
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. September 16, 2019, 01:55:20 PM

Login with username, password and session length


Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
Author Topic: The company has, in short, turned evil.  (Read 6676 times)
rcjordan
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 882


View Profile
« on: December 15, 2009, 11:34:32 AM »

"Facebook's privacy pullback isn't just outrageous; it's a landmark turning point for the social network. Facebook has blundered before, but the latest changes are far more calculated."

http://valleywag.gawker.com/5426176/facebooks-great-betrayal
Logged
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2009, 12:18:26 PM »

Strange.  I went from upset to confused.  My fb settings are just as private as they've always been: Friends Only, for just about everything.  No settings changed for me at all, though apparently others have had a different experience.  I'm wondering if there was a bug associated with this move since all of these negative assertions are just not true in my personal case.  The concerns are very real though and shame on fb if they've exposed people against their will, and without their knowledge  Police
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
rcjordan
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 882


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2009, 12:40:02 PM »

I couldn't tell you from personal experience, ITTO, as I'm holding out in order to become the last human being without a FB account.

Nonetheless, here's a Gawker article I forwarded to those I know who are more socially inclined:

The Valleywag Guide to Restoring Your Privacy on Facebook

http://valleywag.gawker.com/5427077/the-valleywag-guide-to-restoring-your-privacy-on-facebook
Logged
kurdt
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1153


paha arkkitehti


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2009, 12:56:10 PM »

Isn't it funny how two of the biggest companies in internet are basically both completely idiotic in the way they have chosen to treat their users.

Also what's really hilarious is that Mark Zuckerberg is famously anti-Google and then his company is doing the exact same thing Google does which is praying on their users and using their information without telling CLEARLY what they are doing with it and what exactly they tracking & analyzing. That guy is a hypocrite douchebag.
Logged

I met god and he had nothing to say to me.
nutballs
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5627


Back in my day we had 9 planets


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2009, 01:02:32 PM »

I agree with Itto. Frankly, the order of events for this "change" was a not thing.
I logged into facebook one day.
It poped up a form of radio buttons.
the choices were, make public or keep original.
Mind you, all the Make Public radios were selected by default, but big deal.
I selected all the keep original radios, and submitted.

Lately it seems to be that they do this about every few months. I think to cause people to "accidentally" switch to public.
Logged

I could eat a bowl of Alphabet Soup and shit a better argument than that.
rcjordan
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 882


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2009, 01:11:55 PM »

Itís the defaults that matter.
Logged
daviator
Expert
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2009, 02:14:23 PM »

My defaults were all set to "keep existing settings" or whatever they called it.  I went through and reviewed them all, and they were fine.  So from my perspective, Facebook did nothing nefarious, as the suggested settings were pretty much the same restrictive settings I've had for a long time.

There's also been criticism of FB for allowing (by default) info to be indexed by search enginesÖ that doesn't bother me either, since (a) you can turn it off, and (b) the only stuff that's indexed or shown as search results are things you've set as visible to EVERYONE.  The "friends only" or "friends of friends" stuff is not indexed or shown.

If some people found their settings or defaults reverted to less restrictive choices, I'd agree that isn't a good thing, but that wasn't my experience.
Logged
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2009, 02:20:50 PM »

Yes, it's the defaults that matter.  But it just seems to me that we expect a heck of a lot from a free service.  On one hand, some will point out how immeasurably "expensive" it is to allow google to google around with your data.  Or how Facebook went from some grand protector of privacy to pure evil.

Here's what will appear to be a switch for the nuance impaired: there's no free lunch, nothing is free, everything has a cost associated with it.  On one hand, people snicker about how unprofitable Facebook is and how they will soon crumble since the model of "free" is all smoke and mirrors.  Then, when they attempt to maneuver themselves into a position of profitability people cry foul.  You know, if they continued to over-leverage the "infinite" aspect of the free model while ignoring the mundane and more commonly understood "scarce" part of the equation, they could wind up belly up. 

Imagine the abyss-like moans you would hear from those who "worked so hard" to create and manage their Facebook connections if they closed their doors!  There will always be complainers.  The more successful you are the louder the voices get.  Facebook, Google and other "free" modeled companies simply must fail.  Otherwise it would cause those with entrenched beliefs about their "impossible" and "foolish" business models to reevaluate their assertions 

For me personally, I have a gigantic bias against all things closed source and all things that cower under some pansy-ass, artificial, IP legal umbrella.  So I know what it's like to try to have an open mind when, say, Oracle donates $10 bucks to some charity.  But for all the negative heat Facebook endures, they've sure done a lot for the world in terms of re-connecting people with long lost friends, for "free."

I'm grateful for this service.  Keep things policed - absolutely.  But keep it real as well.  Evil?  Facebook has nothing on Proctor and Gamble, Philip Morris, Nestle, Citicorp, Johnson and Johnson, GE, Ford, ad nausea  Mobster
« Last Edit: December 15, 2009, 02:36:53 PM by isthisthingon » Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2009, 02:52:42 PM »

I couldn't tell you from personal experience, ITTO, as I'm holding out in order to become the last human being without a FB account.

Nonetheless, here's a Gawker article I forwarded to those I know who are more socially inclined:

The Valleywag Guide to Restoring Your Privacy on Facebook

http://valleywag.gawker.com/5427077/the-valleywag-guide-to-restoring-your-privacy-on-facebook

Yet: "You can, however, limit the ability of others to find this information through search using your search privacy settings."

Still, it seems like a gigantic uproar over what should be obvious, which I presume you already understand since you don't even have a Facebook account - the information is completely exposed to the whole friggin universe, umkay.  Hell, I don't even trust their privacy settings.  I assume what I put out there will be as public as a Viagra ad.  But I will give the article this much credit.  Fantastic photo!!  ROFLMAO

Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
rcjordan
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 882


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2009, 03:21:31 PM »

(When I was 10 or 11, one of my uncles had a large egg-producer business as part of his farming operation.  The main 'coop' was probably 6,000 sq. ft. and was made of corrugated metal vertical siding.  One of my favorite evening pastimes was to slip out to the coop and run along the side of the building dragging a stick across the washboard siding ridges.  I confess, I still like that game.)

>gigantic uproar over what should be obvious, which I presume you already understand since you don't even have a Facebook account - the information is completely exposed to the whole friggin universe, umkay.  Hell, I don't even trust their privacy settings

I'm thinking that existing FB accounts aren't the main target. Certainly not those members who have enough wherewithal to actually manage their profiles. Itís the future defaults that matter.



Logged
kurdt
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1153


paha arkkitehti


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2009, 03:54:54 PM »

But it just seems to me that we expect a heck of a lot from a free service. Or how Facebook went from some grand protector of privacy to pure evil.
Well it is a pretty slimey to first promise something and then do classic bait and switch scam. Part of Facebook's success was the promise that you can actually keep your privacy with this social network and now they are trying in every way to make it to opposite.

You know me so I'm all about that companies should do what they want and nobody should be able to force them to do anything else *cough*psystar*cough. But the reason why I'm so pissed is that Facebook is doing the same "do no evil" scam that Google is pulling. Now people should vote with their accounts and we would see how fast the fastest growing company crumbles. That would make a really interesting case study.
Logged

I met god and he had nothing to say to me.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2009, 04:26:28 PM »

Quote
Well it is a pretty slimey to first promise something and then do classic bait and switch scam.

Agreed.  And I find this practice beyond distasteful.  What's worse is when there's any kind of "lock in" on top of the bait and switch.  Speaking of lock ins, I'm far more vocal and angry with the likes of AT&T when they make changes that directly impact the wallets of their enslaved legion of customers.  Sure it's disgusting when anyone pulls this stunt on the public.  But why is it that the AT&Ts of the world get a pass because after all, it's a "free market" and you can go elsewhere, when free services like Facebook get front page criticism?

Again I agree that nobody should get away with claiming one thing and then doing another (like, um... switching to usage-based charging after signing a contract for unlimited data usage).  I may be in the minority on this one.  But I just feel like there should be a whole lot more in the "nefarious" column before we break out the torches and shotguns for a public Facebook hanging 

>I confess, I still like that game.

 ROFLMAO  rc you rock!  ROFLMAO

>Itís the future defaults that matter.

I think it's very important to raise awareness of these things.  One of my personal pet peeves is finding some pre-selected, opt-in checkbox for a browser toolbar or some other app when you scroll down to the bottom of some block of meaningless text that only exists to encourage you to click "Next" in some installation wizard.  So just for the record, I'm a fierce enemy of all things deceptive, misleading, and basically evil.  I just don't see the current Facebook uproar as being quite as evil as others 
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
rcjordan
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 882


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: December 15, 2009, 04:38:25 PM »

Stockholm Syndrome?
Logged
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: December 15, 2009, 05:05:08 PM »

Munchausen by proxy syndrome?


About MBPS

In MBPS, an individual deliberately makes another person or corporate entity (such as British Petroleum, or Facebook) sick or convinces others that the entity is sick. They mislead others into thinking that the entity has medical problems or corporate malfeasance by lying and reporting fictitious episodes. He or she may exaggerate, fabricate, or induce symptoms. As a result, doctors usually order tests, try different types of medications, and may even hospitalize the child or perform surgery to determine the cause.  In corporate cases, auditors, regulators and the public at large may induce labor with a finely tuned accordion. 

Typically, the perpetrator feels satisfied by gaining the attention and sympathy of doctors, nurses, and others who come into contact with him or her and the child. Some Cache experts believe that it isn't just the attention that's gained from the "illness" of the entity that drives this behavior, but also the satisfaction in being able to deceive individuals that they consider to be more important and powerful than themselves.  Others contend that frogs are robots...

Damn rc my bad!  I'm battling a whopper of an acid flashback and my fingers got the better of me Wink  Seriously though - haven't smoked a cig since Friday night and I'm going freaking crazy!!!!!
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
rcjordan
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 882


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: December 15, 2009, 09:39:05 PM »

>the satisfaction in being able to deceive individuals that they consider to be more important and powerful than themselves.

Yes, it's true. My uncle's chickens were higher-order intellects.


>since friday

Hang in there, ITTO.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Perkiset's Place Home   Best of The Cache   phpMyIDE: MySQL Stored Procedures, Functions & Triggers
Politics @ Perkiset's   Pinkhat's Perspective   
cache
mart
coder
programmers
ajax
php
javascript
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Seo4Smf v0.2 © Webmaster's Talks


Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!