The worst part is that the person pictured next to the Revolights ad almost certainly does not know that they're being used next to the ad.
Here's an experiment guaranteed to make the front page of HN if you can write it up well: take screenshots of all the newsfeed ads you see and send them to the person pictured asking them if they were aware their image was being used that way.
This really sucks for people who like hundreds of random things. It use to be that people would like EVERYTHING... now that's coming back to bite everyone in the ass.
"Open" in the social sense means that people know about the lives of others. Claiming that Facebook hasn't made the world more open seems odd to me.
"Connected" is even more straightforward. Facebook dramatically strengthens weak social ties. I interact with people I never would have kept up with if Facebook didn't exits.
There are plenty of rational criticisms of Facebook, but this isn't one of them.
I don't think this is necessarily hypocritical. They never claimed they wanted to be "as open as possible in every conceivable way", they just said "open". For obvious reasons, sharing all of their data would be risky, if not suicidal.
Oh come on. This is just unnecessary pedantry. We live in the real world here where people are people and not die-hard ideologues. It makes perfect sense that they do this. If youre a Facebook member you get access to the "openness" they're talking about. Plus it'd be really dumb for "to make the world more open and connected by providing an online service that lets you comminicate and share messages and assorted media with people with which you already have or will build connected relationships with if you are a member of our open connected service" to be their mission statement. Obviously the bulk of it is implied. If you follow your argument all the way through then you eventually get to ampointnwhere you're basically arguing that they explain the entire service right in the mission statement leaving out no detail. Just, c'mon. We all know what it means.
That's not the case.
I just copied url to post I made to 'everyone (public)', set my browser into private mode, went to that url and I could my post just fine.
Thanks for clarifying. It's been a while since I clicked on a Facebook link. When I tried it just now, you are right that direct post URLs will work. But when browsing a public page or profile, there are pop-us that obscure the rest of the screen as you scroll or hover over links.
Let's hope that Facebook is experimenting with this, such that the end-result is not 80% ads. Facebook pages are starting to get noisy. I'm trying http://www.pinvolve.co/ and it removes all ads from your FB pages.
Not sure if that comment is meant to sarcastic or not but ads are main driving force behind the freemium model of the web. Whether it be Google, Youtube, Facebook or even Reddit and HN, you won't get to access them for free unless there exists a potential for advertisements. Like most others I hate to be at the receiving end of these advertisements, but that changes when it comes to promoting a startup, especially when it is known to be the best medium.
I never stayed up all night chatting to a chair and sending it links. I'll give it a shot tonight. Also, when you make a chair bigger, it usually becomes a couch or a love-seat in the same way that when you make thefacebook.com bigger, it becomes a disgusting mess of ads and garbage applications all designed to get more data about you in the hope they can sell you something.
Seriously, the only people FB is fooling are the fools who use it. While those people exist (and they always have throughout history), FB or some sort of FB (social network) will exist. The problem is, like the author, people know that they don't want to be part of FB and yet they still are. Yes, it's an addiction, but it's an addiction that can be defeated. And you don't even have to do 12 steps. It's just one step and two weeks of waiting to delete your account.
The excuses form people who claim to hate FB but still use it are getting quite old by now. If you really want to make a point, cancel your FB account and then write this. It'll resonate a lot more.
This vitriolic hate for facebook from certain parts of the tech crowd has always confused me. Where does this come from and, further, why is it extended to users? Why must facebook users be considered "fools"?
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks.
I'm responsible for making sure 10 or so websites are professional and are ready to represent the brands of a $100+ million dollar company. It's a big responsibility. I once said I couldn't believe those idiots would trust me with that task. Does that mean I think my employer and my bosses are idiots? No. It's just a way of expressing humility and coping with the fact that a task comes with a high amount of trust and responsibility.
In my case and in Zuckerberg's the comment was made in private and never meant to be heard by the public. I think using this quote against him is a cheap shot and a total copout to avoid answering the parent's question in any real way. If everyone's private comments were held against them then every person on earth would be vilified. I'm no fan of Facebook but I am a realist and when you try to use that quote against him you come off as blindly anti-Zuck/Facebook.
So to rephrase the question, why do you think Facebook users are fools? And if the answer is "because mark said so" then I'm sure I can find Zuckerberg being extra complimentary of Facebook users and then I'd ask "so which quote do we go with? The one that suits your belief or would you prefer to come up with your own reason?"
If there's humility in calling your bosses idiots, is it in the form of sarcasm? I understand the "wow, I'm in this position" thing, but there's a disconnect.
You should perhaps do some further reading into the source material. The op asked why this was a prevalent view, I supplied an independent analyst citation,[1] and quoted some relevant material. That is reportage, not my personal view per-se, and it has been the former that has been more influential to date rather than the latter.
Clearly, this is a view that some people hold, and that is evidenced based. That evidence is quite damning when considered <in context> both at the time--he's offering to distribute private, personally identifiable information without consent--and in the larger, later context of FB's evolution, and subsequent business decisions. It is not a "cheap shot and total copout". On the contrary, it is dead on point. As such, it seems a leigitimate position. Playing devils advocate, is also one that at least needs to be argued against rather than wished away.
If you have evidence or logic to argue against it, and that is a position you believe, then feel free to put it forward. On the other hand, putting forth your own foible is not overly persuasive. That seems, to the contrary, to have been a mere expression of incredulity.
_________________
[1] The analyst is short facebook, obviously. (And per her disclosure at the end of the linked citation).
I think because the private details of your life shouldn't be a commodity and once you realize someone's made them that and you don't fight back it's a little disgusting.
Here's an experiment guaranteed to make the front page of HN if you can write it up well: take screenshots of all the newsfeed ads you see and send them to the person pictured asking them if they were aware their image was being used that way.