Sorry, Facebook haters: It's not going anywhere

You made a statement , that Facebook's privacy controls are still rather complex for some. Who is "some"?

No game really. I'm curious about the sites.

[dw426]

Originally Posted by guest

No game really. I'm curious about the sites.

Alright, here's but one http://www.hanselman.com/blog/Facebo...ingsToday.aspx. And that's from a story posted in this thread. Also, again, many users whom I personally know agree that they still need some tweaking.

[Hungry Man]

Originally Posted by guest

You made a statement , that Facebook's privacy controls are still rather complex for some. Who is "some"?

http://bit.ly/MpgFZM

What kind of tweaking did they suggest? Sorry if I'm getting too specific, but I'm really interested about what could be made to improve the controls.

Originally Posted by Hungry Man

http://bit.ly/MpgFZM

LOL, no relevant result.

Originally Posted by dw426

Alright, here's but one http://www.hanselman.com/blog/Facebo...ingsToday.aspx. And that's from a story posted in this thread.

Could you provide the info in the way vasa1 suggested, please? This is a very important issue IMO.

Originally Posted by dw426

LMMFAO!

That search was too complex, even for Google. Did I miss something?

Originally Posted by dw426

I'm not starting a new thread on that, and for petesake, don't quote a post not even from this thread and use it to attack somebody. Really, I'm done now.

What post? What attack on somebody?

vasa1's post? It is right there in the 5th page of this thread, #123. How exactly is quoting it an attack on somebody?

Originally Posted by dw426

Edit: Yes, you missed something, it went straight over your head

Point me to it?

[dw426]

Originally Posted by guest

What post? What attack on somebody?

vasa1's post? It is right there in the 5th page of this thread, #123. How exactly is quoting it an attack on somebody?


Point me to it?

I found the post, and apologize..btw, clicking the link you posted brought up an error, lol. But you did come off as attacking me, but whatever. As to the link Hungry provided, you must have something blocking the action. There's no real reason to make a new thread on the issue of privacy control complexity. That being said, I do think it would be nice to follow his advice and post on the different topic of Facebook/social tracking

Originally Posted by dw426

I found the post, and apologize..btw, clicking the link you posted brought up an error, lol. But you did come off as attacking me, but whatever.

I fixed it, try it again please.

Attack? I'm not attacking you, lol. How exactly am I attacking you in your opinion?

Originally Posted by dw426

As to the link Hungry provided, you must have something blocking the action.

I saw the Google results, just nothing about people-complaining-about-the-FB's-privacy-controls-after-actually-using-them.

Again, am I missing some link?

Originally Posted by dw426

There's no real reason to make a new thread on the issue of privacy control complexity.

I never suggested that.

Originally Posted by dw426

That being said, I do think it would be nice to follow his advice and post on the different topic of Facebook/social tracking

Create one as he suggested then:

Originally Posted by vasa1

Would you mind starting a new thread with specifics?

Site (not the cat loving cheeseburgers one, please)
Social stuff / trackers blocked (ga, g+, fb, twitter, etc)
Browser
How is the blocking done (NoScript, AdBlock, hosts file, etc)
What exactly happens = "won't work properly"

[Hungry Man]

Here, I've narrowed the search.
http://bit.ly/LrtQ7g

Originally Posted by Hungry Man

Here, I've narrowed the search.
http://bit.ly/LrtQ7g

Lol, in these results they are complaining about things being too private after they messed up the privacy controls.

[Hungry Man]

My point is that it is not anyone's job on this site to provide evidence for opinions. We are not formally submitting our papers for comittee approval before publishing. A simple google search will show there's at least some precedent for the post.

[dw426]

Originally Posted by guest

Lol, in the results they are complaining about things being too private after they messed up the privacy controls.

Lol, well just keep hunting. In the meantime, to save the mods the hassle, I cleaned up my own posts. Look, we differ in opinion, that's cool. I've spent time with people who aren't thrilled with the settings, but that's them.

[Tomwa]

I used to love google as both a company and a service provider. But then they decided to try and link all my accounts together with their garbage new policy now I deleted all buy my main Google account and all sensitive material is handled elsewhere, and DuckDuckGo is my new homepage and search engine (Which im very happy with).

Facebook account went out the window as well I never used it but to talk to people I couldn't catch online (Hard to catch people in Poland for example on line at the same time as you).

[Cudni]

ot posts removed

[Dermot7]

Well it does seem to be going somewhere

It seems that real friends are hard to find. There may be more than 83m fake accounts on Facebook, the social network has revealed.

Facebook's disclosure came in a week that saw its shares hit new lows, dipping below $20 for the first time on Thursday. Its shares have now lost almost half their value since debuting at $38 in May in the largest initial public offering to emerge from Silicon Valley.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...mps-20-dollars

[tgell]

Of course the stock price fluctuates but I just read an article where Zuckerberg has lost about $9 billion since the IPO. The stock came back on Friday but on Thursday, he lost $423 million alone.

[Tarnak]

Originally Posted by tgell

Of course the stock price fluctuates but I just read an article where Zuckerberg has lost about $9 billion since the IPO. The stock came back on Friday but on Thursday, he lost $423 million alone.

How did he lose, if it's his IPO to begin with. He must have truckload of cash, now.

[siljaline]

From Wired.com: Facebook Detectives Can’t Corroborate Claims of Clicky Robots

Four days ago, a music e-commerce site on Long Island ignited a minor controversy by claiming 80 percent of the clicks on its Facebook advertising came from bots. But Facebook says its investigators haven’t received any evidence for those claims, despite an ongoing effort to get to the bottom of the ad mystery.

The Long Island business, Limited Run, said in a post to its now-deleted Facebook Page that it repeatedly saw signs of bots clickings its ads. The first came from an analytics service, which could only verify 20 percent of the clicks Facebook reported sending to Limited Run’s website. Then Limited Run tried other analytics services, which posted similar results. Limited Run then built its own analytics service, which indicated 80 percent of the clicks came from programs not running Javascript, as would be expected from a bot and rare among a human running a web browser.

[siljaline]

Refugee from Facebook questions the social media life.

Not long after Katherine Losse left her Silicon Valley career and moved to this West Texas town for its artsy vibe and crisp desert air, she decided to make friends the old-fashioned way, in person. So she went to her Facebook page and, with a series of keystrokes, shut it off.

The move carried extra import because Losse had been the social network’s 51st employee and rose to become founder Mark Zuckerberg’s personal ghostwriter. But Losse gradually soured on the revolution in human relations she witnessed from within.

The explosion of social media, she believed, left hundreds of millions of users with connections that were more plentiful but also narrower and less satisfying, with intimacy losing out to efficiency. It was time, Losse thought, for people to renegotiate their relationships with technology.

Technology is a hammer. It can be used to build things, or to wreck things. If you choose to wreck things with it - or to build the wrong things - you can't go blaming the hammer; you can only blame yourself.

As a society, I think we've used our technologies to some profoundly stupid (and often immoral) ends. This doesn't mean we should divorce ourselves from technology, it means we should learn to use it correctly.

(Not in the least because it's already too damn late to stop.)

Edit: to be clear, I'm saying this because most talk of "renegotiating our relationship with technology" has a distinct "make like the Amish" vibe to it. OTOH, I often wish I'd never heard of Facebook...

[luciddream]

Originally Posted by guest

I have more than 500 FB friends.

I prefer real friends. I don't have nearly 500 of them, but I can actually see/touch them. It's nice.

Who expected Facebook to "go anywhere", really? It's too big of a cash crop, and too convenient a way to harvest information for certain govt. entities that may want it (for whatever purpose). It isn't going anywhere.

That and most people prefer to live their lives virtually these days. Very few of us prefer real-life interaction. The last mohicans...