<p>wait..can anyone explain this "feeds" thing to me haha...I don't want to activate my account again</p>
<p>"Brassman271 :
The facebook service is free. This is like a gift(free) given to you, and when you receive it, you complain. Think about how that feels to the giver (facebook admin)"</p>
<p>Felix... you're making UCLA look bad when you try to explain that a corporation who provides a service is -- through their grand munificence and altruism -- providing me with a gift.</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>Is Google providing me with a "gift" when I use their search engine? Is MSN, with its news updates and range of services? The last time I checked, Google and Microsoft aren't nonprofits. Facebook, like many internet based functions who provide a service in exchange for page views of their banner ads, makes money based on our use. The devlopers of Facebook didn't decide to get together one day and go "Hey! I think giving food to the homeless is cliche. Instead, I'd rather do charity work through developing a social networking site for college students because, by golly, I'm a really good guy." No. It's a business. A multi-million dollar business.</p>
<p>Ok, the car analogy was a stretch. How about free email then. It's something you depend on, but don't HAVE TO. But like facebook, it's horribly convenient and fills a niche of services you've grown so accustomed to that doing otherwise would be annoyingly difficult. There are alternatives like the phone and snail mail to email but yet you use it anyway. Lets say though that your email provider one day decides to implement changes that undermine your privacy. How would you feel about that?</p>
<p>It basically broadcasts your every facebook move to everyone. Your homepage has a huge list of what all your friends have been doing: "rachel has added ____ as a friend!" "chris has removed ___ from his profile" "blahblahblah has written on blahblah's wall". Then on your profile, there's a big list of your "history" for everyone to see. </p>
<p>And yeah, it CAN be hidden. But the concept is still flawed. </p>
<p>To quote the quote on [url=<a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/09/06/0112231.shtml%5DSlashdot%5B/url">http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/09/06/0112231.shtml]Slashdot[/url</a>], "Stalking is SUPPOSED to be hard".</p>
<p>Yeah. Murdoch didn't buy Myspace for 600million because he just loves to give stuff away for free. </p>
<p>When you use Facebook, or Myspace, or Google, or ANYTHING, you are consumers whether you pay for the service outright or not.</p>
<p>I think you guys are ignoring an important fact:</p>
<p>Facebook was never supposed to be about PRIVACY</p>
<p>The only function the "feeds" is serving is that it's making information that was already there more apparent. When you signed up for Facebook, your privacy was already compromised. You CHOSE to give your privacy away when you listed your picture, address, room#, phone# and a variety of other information about yourself. If you have any of the above information displayed on Facebook, then you have no right to whine about the new feature. If you don't like it simply disable your account, because I doubt Facebook gives a ****.</p>
<p>Actually, Facebook takes privacy pretty seriously:</p>
<p><a href="http://usc.facebook.com/policy.php%5B/url%5D">http://usc.facebook.com/policy.php</a></p>
<p>Why? Because it has to -- it's what differentiates it from the multitudes of other social networking sites available on the internet. Countless business journals (Forbes, BW, even the NYT) have lauded privacy as being the facebook's reason for success. Many many college students are MySpace averse thanks to the lack of privacy they offer, compared to the Facebook who requires that you be a college student AND attend the same school as someone in roder to view their profile without confirming them as a friend. It's why people on Facebook (as opposed to MySpace) aren't afraid to post their mailing address, phone number or whatnot -- because you know it's only available to other school students, and your friends.</p>
<p>Yes, by signing on to Facebook, you do choose to forfeit a little privacy. And everyone was confortable with the amount of privacy originally given. But with the new changes, Facebook asks us to forfeit a lot more privacy than many are comfortable with.</p>
<p>No, and all of the information was already out there. We know that. Again, from Slashdot: "These details were all public previously, but it was only through intentional browsing that they would be discovered. In the words of one user, "Stalking is supposed to be hard."</p>
<p>There's just something about someone getting your information WITHOUT EVEN TRYING that's weird. It's gossipy and stalkerish and just kinda strange. One's goings-on on Facebook isn't really news and it shouldn't really be classified as news and broadcasted as such. </p>
<p>"When we join facebook, we automatically give up a little bit of our privacy. To use Facebook has always been "socially-acceptable stalking." Now, though, they've just gone too damned far. No one wants their girlfriend or boyfriend knowing when they've commented on a photo, written on a wall, or anything else. No one wants people to see that they've left a group; it could offend someone. No one really wants to see the change in status of someone's love life." </p>
<p>Everyone is acknowledging that the choice was consciously made to put the information out there. But a lot of the stuff, like changing groups, writing on walls, etc, isn't really news and there's no reason for Facebook to deliver it as news. I think the uproar is more about Facebook's publicly tracking your every move than it is about privacy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"These details were all public previously, but it was only through intentional browsing that they would be discovered. In the words of one user, "Stalking is supposed to be hard."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's what my point was...if the intention was of stalking such information is not difficult to gather.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There's just something about someone getting your information WITHOUT EVEN TRYING that's weird. It's gossipy and stalkerish and just kinda strange. One's goings-on on Facebook isn't really news and it shouldn't really be classified as news and broadcasted as such.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The idea of Facebook itself is "gossipy and stalkerish and just kinda strange" People are already broadcasting a lot of things about themselves without being asked to. Let's face it: people have voyeur fetish, about themselves and others. When you post 100+ pictures of yourself and who you are sleeping with, you yourself are to blame. "We Care About Your Privacy" was never Facebook's motto.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Everyone is acknowledging that the choice was consciously made to put the information out there. But a lot of the stuff, like changing groups, writing on walls, etc, isn't really news and there's no reason for Facebook to deliver it as news. I think the uproar is more about Facebook's publicly tracking your every move than it is about privacy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If that's the reason for the uproar then it's misguided. Facebook didn't coerce you into providing the information. You did that yourself. If Facebook was displaying information you never meant anyone to find out, as in if you explicitly made it private, only then could this be considered a privacy issue. If you made the information public, then they have every right, as a money-making corporation, to use it. </p>
<p>As I said, the information on the "feeds" is voluntarily given...if one has a problem with other people finding out that information then it's his/her CHOICE to remove it. Blaming Facebook for using information you gave them yourself is ridiculous.</p>
<p>Citan, right. It's not hard to gather. But at least before someone had to have the initiative to GATHER it. Instead of facebook handing it to them on a silver platter. </p>
<p>And no. Facebook doesn't really care much about privacy, only enough to cover their own asses. And I agree wholeheartedly that people post too much of what they shouldn't be posting. But having a news feed that tells you exactly when a couple broke up or hooked up is completely unneccessary. Same thing for notifiying everyone on a person's friendlist when they wrote on someone's wall or dropped a group or dropped a friend. This is information that non-stalkers don't really care to know and it doesn't really need to be broadcasted. While the nature of social networking sites, and the internet in general, has and always will be voyeurish, as a user I feel like I'm getting waaaay too much information. If someone wants to post that stuff, thats fine. And if I then look at their page and choose to read it or keep up with that, that's also fine. But if I have no interest in that, it shouldn't really be the first thing I see when I sign on. </p>
<p>I'm not arguing at all that people posting things on facebook and then complaining about privacy is stupid. But there's a difference between posting information you want the world to know, and having facebook post your every move (which otherwise would have gone under the radar, unless someone was explicitly paying attention to your goings-on). Because the feed could very easily start displaying crap like "soandso looked at your profile 106 times yesterday", which other sites (match.com for example) already do, and that WOULD be publicly broadcasting things that you wouldn't necessarily want someone to know. It's not just that they're making it easier to see the things you've voluntarily posted, they're making it easier to see every. single. thing. that you have done on their site. It pinpoints your every move and takes it to a degree of stalkerdom that is really somewhat unprecedented thus far online. I don't really care if anyone sees that I added a group, or if I added a friend. I DO care, however, that Facebook thinks its ok to track my every move. I'm just saying that it's a little too 1984 for my liking. </p>
<p>I'm the first to say that people should be accountable for what they post online. I've been around since way before social networking sites were distinguished as social networking sites, and I've seen a lot of people do a lot of really dumb things. There's no such thing as privacy on the internet. But what I'm saying is that Facebook is exploiting that fact, and could potentially end up publishing things that it's users DON'T want published.</p>
<p>If anything, though, I do think that the feed is making people evaluate how much they put online and making them realize that there isn't any e-privacy. </p>
<p>So it may be good for something.</p>
<p>Totally agree with Citan and Allie. The most ridiculous moves I hear are deactivating accounts, sending message to admins, ranting in groups.</p>
<p>All lame. What's next? Whose going to call 911 and say that "OMG facebook is messed up!"?</p>
<p>themegastud:</p>
<p>Yes, I understand what you wrote. I was wrong that these were "free" services. Don't want to argue with you. But next time, don't write "you're making UCLA look bad" yeah?</p>
<p>Just a little upset that too many people whine and complain about the new feature when the themselves give out too much information.</p>
<p>FelixLee, what about the people who are always careful of what they want to reveal and are never giving out too much information? </p>
<p>The invasiveness is one thing, but for me, the other thing that irks me more is the change in layout. The simplicity and elegance that typify Facebook is gone. It is now and eye-sore.</p>
<p>Also, Citan + Allie have opposing points. So how do you agree with them?</p>
<p>Building on what fruit was saying,</p>
<p>Previously, Facebook allowed a certain amount of privacy that, seemingly, most were comfortable with. Suddenly, you wake up one day and information you don't want to see if shoved right in front of your face, and information you don't necessarily want <em>everyone</em> to see, is shoved in others faces. And that's where the underlying problem is. One day, Facebook allows a certain amount of privacy, and then all of a sudden and completely unasked for, it doesn't. Yes, we put information out there previously -- perhaps information which you, in your own opinion, thought was too much. But we were comfortable at that time with sharing certain info, because its accessability was limited. Now it is not and, like you, we're uncomfortable. Perhaps those who are disgruntled have more in common with you (Citan and FelixLee) than you two thought.</p>
<p>Considering that the sheer number of students protesting, either by sending comments to the facebook team, or even joining "anti news feed groups" has forced Facebook developers to respond (<a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=2208197130)%5B/url%5D">http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=2208197130)</a>, I would challenge the assertion that disgruntled facebook users like me are merely "whining." Especially given the fact that Mark Zuckerberg himself addressed specific groups popping up. </p>
<p>And exactly how is protesting, including deactivating accounts ridiculous? If simply one person deactivates an account, imagine how many ad views in total facebook loses over the course of four years if that person loggen into facebook multiple times daily (as is the norm). And again, the other methods of protest you rail about are apparently making a difference (see above paragraph).</p>
<p>Sorry for the harsh words earlier FelixLee, but you're making counterpoints without having a solid grasp of the facebook's business model. Like any service-oriented business, facebook's job is to keep its customers happy with the service -- otherwise customers will either leave or use the service less... resulting in a loss of revenue for the firm. Considering how much uproar this has caused, enough to lead some to deactivate, enough to put a dent in the # of facebook subscribers in existence or at least the page views of current subscirbers -- all of which are directly tied to revenue -- I think it would be rather base to term our response as insignificant "whining," don't you?</p>
<p>its funny i myself am a member of a couple of groups protesting the feeds, but after reading the blog by facebook staff (link provided above by themegastud) i do see facebook's point, feeds are an organised and quick method of keepin up with friends, after all how many times do you read or visit a friends profile? But i do believe, that instead of having to hide the feeds, one by one from our profile, everone should be given an option of which types of "stories" others can view. if you look at it, they have categories, such as "wall" news (well i don't know the exact names, but different stories have, different icons, and when you click "see all" a legend tells you the meaning of each icon) so people should be able to chose which type of stories their friends can see. Its a "cool" feature like facebook staff says, but it would only be acceptable if we can control it. </p>
<p>the worst kinds of feeds i thought were the wall post stories, which actually go something like this:</p>
<p>so and so wrote "blah blah blah blah" on so and so's wall. that is not cool, just ridiculous.</p>
<p>front page of our beloved washington post</p>
<p>Yeah I reeeeaalllly don't think that they were expecting this kind of backlash.</p>
<p>I agree with Rejected4Life. It's so retarded when you log in and see comments on other ppl's wall that has absolutely ntohing to do with you.
I don't know about you guys, but I'm sticking with communicating via messages</p>
<p>Guys, I have officially decided that the News Feed is now really fun. You can basically annoy the heck out of your friends:</p>
<p>"Somehow we missed this point with Feed and we didn't build in the proper privacy controls right away. This was a big mistake on our part, and I'm sorry for it. But apologizing isn't enough. I wanted to make sure we did something about it, and quickly. So we have been coding nonstop for two days to get you better privacy controls. This new privacy page will allow you to choose which types of stories go into your Mini-Feed and your friends' News Feeds, and it also lists the type of actions Facebook will never let any other person know about. If you have more comments, please send them over."</p>
<p>i sent them that suggestion in an email yesterday and viola...........</p>