

EFF vs. Facebook: Part 2: "Facebook's Connections" - bjonathan
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/things-you-need-know-about-facebook

======
jeromewbrock
It's akin to the lobster-in-a-boiling-pot scenario.

Put a lobster in already boiling water and it screams, stick it in room-temp
water and heat to boiling and the lobster won't notice it's being cooked until
it's too late...

~~~
pohl
Thank you for using a lobster instead of a frog, because I went to see if
lobsters were mentioned on the wikipedia page for boiling frogs, and there was
a reference there to another entry for "creeping normalcy". I like that
phrase.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creeping_normalcy>

~~~
fnid2
The frog one is false

<http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp>

~~~
pohl
Yeah, it's frustrating that it gets propagated as truth rather than allegory.
Some day I'd like it to find a home amongst Aesop's fables. The fox and the
grapes, the tortise and the hare, the boiling frog...

------
alttab
I've started a status update campaign for all of my Facebook friends to
educate themselves on these matters.

I'm leaving my college pictures up there because its not unheard of to be a
drunk American college student, plus these years are behind me.

But my Facebook activity is now limited to keeping in touch with my friends by
reading _their_ content. Not the other way around.

Next thing we know our inboxes are public. We simply can't trust Mark anymore.

------
ohashi
I've simply refused... seems to be a dark path they are going down if you're a
user... but at the same time I find myself stuck with it as it's an important
part of how I manage my life. They know that and that's why they keep screwing
us.

------
mattmillr
I haven't been particularly concerned with the privacy implications. I tend to
operate under the assumption that stuff I post online is public.

But this latest change has another implication: it decreases the ability for
expression on my profile. For example, in the Favorite Music section, I had
shared a favorite lyric. Now, I'm limited to just listing bands.

While I understand the monetization reasons for "normalizing" the profiles,
ultimately it makes them less interesting. I _want_ to read a free-form
description of a friends activities. A normalized bullet-list is much less
attractive.

Until now, my take on Facebook has been "I'm not too excited about the way
they do things, but it's where I keep up with people who aren't engaged in
other platforms." If future changes decrease the utility of the platform like
this one does, that argument for staying won't hold much longer.

------
motters
Like some others I assume that anything I put online is public information,
but not everyone has this view. For the naive user a site like Facebook
appears to be just about you and your small circle of friends. Especially for
people who are younger and perhaps not so worldly it would be incredibly easy
to post things on Facebook which you might come to regret a few years later -
especially if future employers and insurance companies are trawling through
your data and looking at your connections.

I don't think it's good enough for the folks at Facebook just to say "Privacy
is dead. Get over it". In the real world those people who are not rampant
exhibitionists do want and expect to have some level of privacy - some degree
of control over what information they give to who. Ultimately it's about the
dignity and integrity of the individual.

------
philk
I can't help but wonder if this opens up a niche in the marketplace for a
social networking site that actually does respect your privacy.

~~~
FinnVillus
The real question is: could such a site be profitable and respect your
privacy?

~~~
DrSprout
The marginal costs are pretty small. It could easily be handled by a site with
an emphasis on simplicity like Craigslist.

Personally, I would prefer a non-profit. I can't stand a private company like
Facebook being the primary gateway to my social life. I would like to see
multiple companies involved, but it would be a lot more difficult to get the
network benefits of Facebook with multiple sites.

------
what
Most of these points are reasonable for Facebook. They're just saying that if
you don't like the idea of the "connections," then don't share any
information. At least you've been told that that information will be publicly
visible, period. The fact that they keep your data even after you delete it
from your profile isn't unreasonable either. Did you really think they would
destroy all traces of your data just because you have removed it from your
profile? I bet Google keeps your emails after you delete them.

The only thing that bothers me is point 6.

> Facebook sometimes creates a Connection when you post to your wall. If you
> use the name of a Connection in a post on your wall, it may show up on the
> Connection Page, without you even knowing it.

This is a little sneaky. I wouldn't have a problem if the connections were
just behind the scenes (ie: not visible). Then it would be no different from
Google checking for keywords in your emails so that they can target ads at
you.

~~~
aristus
Point 6 is inaccurate. As far as I know it's not a "Connection" in way they
are claiming. It's a search on recent posts that appear in the "related posts"
boxes. The "FBI" example is nice and scary, but the same holds true for
Puppies and Rainbows.

<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Puppies/108139455886477>
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rainbows/110404012323116>

(disclaimer: I work for Facebook)

~~~
mothaiba
Who can see it though? It appears that a very extended network can view
certain wall posts of mine with select words, even though I've limited all my
wall posts to select friends.

[http://facebookiswatchingyou.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-
you-s...](http://facebookiswatchingyou.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-you-say-now-
on-facebook-can-go-to.html)

------
ErrantX
Is it possible to see someone's connections in a systematic way? (i.e. other
than randomly appearing in the small box to the left of the connections page).

The only bit that holds a particularly serious concern to me is the global
snippets bit which drags your wall posts out into the connections page - I've
seen some random and utterly irrelevant messages appear there and that is
worrying... (it would, perhaps, be better if they implemented the # tag style
system similar to what they've done with @name now)

------
keltex
Sounds like advertisers are getting screwed too:

Facebook sometimes creates a Connection when you post to your wall. If you use
the name of a Connection in a post on your wall, it may show up on the
Connection Page, without you even knowing it. (For example, if you use the
word "FBI" in a post).

Let's say you put "xbox" on your wall. Now you're connected to Xbox. Does an
advertiser get the distinction between "this person has visited the xbox
website and said they liked it (a good candidate to sell a video game) vs.
this person just happened to type xbox on their wall (probably not as good of
a candidate).

~~~
natrius
I haven't seen what the EFF is describing. The things that show up in "Related
Global Posts" aren't "Connections". They're basically search results from
posts that have their privacy set to "Everyone".

The only way to show up as someone who "likes" Xbox is to click a like button
somewhere.

~~~
mothaiba
This article explains how Community pages work. My posts with certain key
words are posted in a semi-public community page. My guess is that those in my
very extended network can see it:
[http://facebookiswatchingyou.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-
you-s...](http://facebookiswatchingyou.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-you-say-now-
on-facebook-can-go-to.html).

~~~
natrius
Who cares? No posts are being exposed to people who couldn't already see them.

