Zuckerberg Quits NAMBLA, And Facebook Downplays Privacy Criticisms Over Groups

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/10/08/mark-zuckerberg-quits-nambla-and-facebook-downplays-privacy-criticisms-over-groups/

by bretpiatt • 16 years ago

67 25 16 years ago

blogs.forbes.com

ajg19773• 16 years ago

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.

mikeknoop• 16 years ago

Okay fair on other features.

But there also is not a way to control who tags you in photos. What's the difference? Both use social pressure to dissuade people from doing it when it is not appropriate.

ajg19773• 16 years ago

1) Tagging a photo of someone generally does not imply their membership/support/interest in something (e.g NAMBLA).

2) It's very clear whether someone is truly in a photo, or it's a result of mischief. It's impossible to tell this with membership of a group.

3) Being tagged in a photo does not create a subscription.

I actually think there SHOULD be a way to prevent being photo tagged if you so wish, or at least prevent it becoming a hard-link to your profile/photos. My sister hates when people tag her in photos and will diligently remove the tags. I think that's a bit weird, but it should be her choice whether she can be tagged or not.

tapp• 16 years ago

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• 16 years ago

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.

lhnn• 16 years ago

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.

theDoug• 16 years ago

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.

amvp• 16 years ago

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!

d2viant• 16 years ago

That link isn't for Mark Zuckerberg's profile.

GiraffeNecktie• 16 years ago

You can change that in your privacy settings.

jeffmould• 16 years ago

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.

ajg19773• 16 years ago

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• 16 years ago

Whats wrong with the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes ?

MrFlibble• 16 years ago

I was wondering when that South Park reference would pop up.

toolate• 16 years ago

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

middlegeek2• 16 years ago

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• 16 years ago

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

Leynos• 16 years ago

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

middlegeek2• 16 years ago

I have received notifications that I have received it from FB.

metamemetics• 16 years ago

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.

Zuckerberg Quits NAMBLA, And Facebook Downplays Privacy Criticisms Over Groups

Related Stories