

Facebook Executive Answers Reader Questions - pavs
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/facebook-executive-answers-reader-questions/?ref=business

======
brandnewlow
This exchange ticked me off:

Q: It used to be that I could limit what strangers saw about me to almost
nothing. I could not show my profile picture, not allow them to “poke” or
message me, certainly not allow them to view my profile page. Now, even my
interests have to be public information. Why can’t I control my own
information anymore? –sxchen, New York

A: Joining Facebook is a conscious choice by vast numbers of people who have
stepped forward deliberately and intentionally to connect and share. We study
user activity. We’ve found that a few fields of information need to be shared
to facilitate the kind of experience people come to Facebook to have. That’s
why we require the following fields to be public: name, profile photo (if
people choose to have one), gender, connections (again, if people choose to
make them), and user ID number. Facebook provides a less satisfying experience
for people who choose not to post a photo or make connections with friends or
interests. But, other than name and gender, nothing requires them to complete
these fields or share information they do not want to share. If you’re not
comfortable sharing, don’t.

Why should I have no choice in whether or not my photo is public?

~~~
Gormo
They're pretty presumptuous they are about what kind of experiences people
join Facebook to have.

If Facebook is a less satisfying experience for people who choose not to post
photos, then why have those people chosen not to post photos? If people are
unanimously less satisfied without posting their name and list of connection
to the entire world, then why do some people deliberately keep that
information private?

Instead of adapting to their users' actual desires, Facebook is forcing their
own vision on everyone. I can't see this working out well for them in the long
term. They're trying to consciously exploit the network effect they've been
lucky enough to develop over the past few years, but are severely
overestimating the value they create and the loyalty of their users.

------
spitfire
Wow. What a politician. He'll fit right in with Zuckerberg.

Q: "Why not simply set everything up for opt-in rather than opt-out? "

A: "Everything is opt-in on Facebook. Participating in the service is a
choice."

