

Zuckerberg Quits NAMBLA, And Facebook Downplays Privacy Criticisms Over Groups - bretpiatt
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/10/08/mark-zuckerberg-quits-nambla-and-facebook-downplays-privacy-criticisms-over-groups/

======
ajg1977
It really bugs me how Facebook's MO seems to be to make every new feature opt-
out, and often awkward to do so, in order to gain traction.

For example I can't even find a way to prevent people adding me to groups,
other than outright de-friending them. That's a little nuclear for over-
enthusiastic family members.

I suppose they'll add one later, after they are able to announce how millions
of users are using the new groups feature.

~~~
tapp
One other interesting side effect of FB's aggressive stance on these features
that I haven't seen discussed elsewhere is that it makes it progressively
harder to be an inactive member.

I know many people who have created profiles which they feel obliged to keep
(to maintain communication with certain family members, friends or colleagues)
but are otherwise not terribly interested in it. FB is subtly adding a form of
reputational decay to your profile. If you want your profile to represent you
in a non-embarrassing way the next time a friend or colleague looks you up,
you now need to log in much more regularly to un-tag yourself from photos and
remove yourself from inappropriate groups (on top of figuring out whatever the
latest changes are to your privacy settings...) Fun!

~~~
pasbesoin
Others have noted another effect, that FB for them is becoming less
interesting. All their (brighter) friends are "clamming up", and the remaining
status messages and content from friends is becoming more infrequent and/or
much less personal or simply interesting.

If I add in the effect you describe, it seems another disincentive to remain
on FB. No good content, and you're constantly whipped to survey a changing
privacy landscape for leaks and vulnerabilities.

------
theDoug
The criticism over Facebook's opt-out trend in new features is definitely
warranted, but Forbes' editors continue to go for reader-baiting titles.

This story "Zuckerberg quits NAMBLA," and "Facebook Billionaire Explains Why
He Backs Prop 19" from yesterday are great examples of perfectly fine stories
made needlessly sensational in order to get attention. I'm guessing most
people wouldn't think of any name _but_ Zuckerberg's when asked to name a
Facebook billionaire.

------
metamemetics
What about spammers/hackers? This seems like a goldmine for them. One account
compromised now means 500 people added to a group against their will with all
of THEIR friends seeing it in the news-feed.

------
amvp
One thing I've found irritating about the facebook privacy system is that it
seems to apply differently to Zuckerberg's own profile. It isn't possible for
me to see a list of <https://www.facebook.com/zucks> friends, for example. But
I can't prevent people outside my network viewing my own friends list. Am I
missing something obvious? If it's a privacy setting that's useful to him,
it's a feature he should expose to the rest of us too!

~~~
jeffmould
Yes, actually anyone can hide their friends list from anyone. If you go to
your profile and click on the little pen icon next to your friends list on the
left side, there is option change visibility settings.

On another note, FB actually has some pretty advanced privacy settings, there
are two problems. First, the settings are not obvious and intuitive to all
users. Second, it really takes some time and effort on the users part to get
the settings just right. One way to do this is to put your friends into what
FB calls "Lists". For example, I have several different lists, one for friends
I really trust, one for work colleagues, one for relatives. Once you have all
your friends separated into lists you can change your privacy settings and
many other options based on those various lists. So for example, my relatives
can see certain photo albums that my work colleagues can't see, and I have
college friends who can see albums that my relatives and work colleagues can't
see. You can also limit what they can post on your wall (if anything), what
info they can see about you, and many other options. FB's biggest problem is
that they assume everything should be open to everyone and then make it
extremely difficult to back off those settings.

~~~
ajg1977
Indeed - if you care about privacy to any degree, and your facebook friends
are a combination of family/friends/colleagues, then lists are essential.

I can't help but feel Facebook could negate a lot of these issues by giving
every user these three groups by default and basing their default privacy
settings around them.

------
lkjhghjkmjnhb
Whats wrong with the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes ?

~~~
toolate
Well he doesn't look anything like Marlon Brando, which probably explains him
quitting.

------
middlegeek
Honestly, I have not seen a different in FB since this change. Groups look a
little different but that is about it.

Is it that no one has attempted to add me to any groups without me knowing?

~~~
marclove
Its a gradual rollout. You probably don't have it yet.

~~~
Leynos
What should one look for to identify the availability of these "new" groups?

~~~
sgibat
<http://www.facebook.com/groups>

The new groups look different, have different features. It should be up for
everyone now.

------
lhnn
Google and Facebook are both doing this: Make an unpopular, privacy
decreasing, and probably mandatory change, then say "If you don't like it,
you're doing something wrong [Having prank-pulling friends, wanting privacy,
etc]."

I've already changed my name, increased my privacy settings and removed my
photos on Facebook... It's a damned fine product, if its administration didn't
insist on making people give things up against their will.

