I suspect that it's actually the issue of control (people aren't confident that they have it) more than privacy that causes so much angst, but I could be wrong. - Paul Buchheit

http://friendfeed.com/paul... btw - Paul Buchheit

*wondering what the Kool-Aid Man looks like in a brownshirt and fur hat with a pheasant feather* - Spidra Webster

That's an awesome image Spidra! - Paul Buchheit

This is what happens to alot of the active users, we started turning on each other after the purchase, because there wasn't any new blood to interact with. I think some of us have gotten used to it by now, it happens a few times a week. - Jimminy, CoG of FF

Both Google and Facebook are asking people to trade privacy for value. Google has simply been smarter about it IMO. They've been *marketing* privacy (catch that 100K/day visits to dashboard post). Whereas Facebook has been marketing feature value - perhaps in hopes of convincing people to exchange that privacy for value. I wrote a bit about this today: http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/have-fa... - AJ Kohn

Paul for all of the irrational name calling, there are many more who admire you and like you. Don't be discouraged. - Shakeel Mahate

Thanks Shakeel. - Paul Buchheit

Privacy is what other people agree not to pass along; Publicity is what they are willing to pass along. - Cliff Gerrish from iPhone

Paul, I have a lot of respect for you and did not make any comments around your words but I am very opposed to the auto-opt-in stance that Facebook is taking. It shows little respect to FB's users. The difference with FF vs FB is that FB started out being a 'private culture'. A site should not switch that mid-stream. - manielse (Mark Nielsen)

Mark, I don't agree with everything Facebook does either, but that's not what I was posting about :) - Paul Buchheit

Sorry, still worked up about that and didn't see the 300+ topic I guess. ;-) - manielse (Mark Nielsen)

=( - Shevonne

*fist bump* Paul. - Derrick

I think that it is because Facebook made a promise initially to offer a space where people could share privately things with their friends. People are feeling betrayed. Emotions are a lot more powerful then reasoning when it comes to decision making. Aren't you the one who needs to know why a startup is doing what they are doing before investing? In this case, facebook seems to be changing the why/what they believe in. - Edwin Khodabakchian

Paul, I think the people here hold the FriendFeed team in high regard, and you personally. Resorting to name calling is always a bad move, and those who went that direction made the wrong move. I hope you can help your new colleagues make sharp decisions and help them become more transparent - so that we can understand what is currently not understood. - Louis Gray

Not just a chat room over at FB, Increasing Journalism, Political, Bricks and Mortar Interface new territory. - Thomas Page

Edwin, Facebook's mission is to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected. Although I don't always agree with their methods, I believe that's a good and valuable mission. - Paul Buchheit

@Paul: I think share is understood but open can be scary and connected even more so once people ... connect the dots. - AJ Kohn

That's a good and valuable mission, but they mean open in the sense of "open book" and not "open platform". Furthermore, I get the impression that they're deliberately letting confusion over that distinction remain. - Mr. Gunn

Paul, decent people (which were a majority of voices in that thread I believe) respect you, as do I. I've had some of the most rational, constructive discussions I can recall right here on FriendFeed - you and the team made that possible, and a whole virtual community here knows it. It's also an outlet for passionate expression and I have good friends here because of it. Just wanted to say thanks again. - Micah

I wrote a somewhat confusing blog post about that last year Mr. Gunn: http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2009... - Paul Buchheit

Paul. This is a good mission statement. I was just trying to give you the perspective of the users and what they think the purpose of facebook is. I think that the good news is that there is probably a balance (example: facebook connect is great where the instant personalization is perceived as just a way to make a quick buck - and very damaging to trust). To facebook's credit, although the balance is obvious in hindsight, someone has to push the limits and find where they are. My guess is that if you listen, be transparent and adapt, everything will be ok in the long run. - Edwin Khodabakchian

Paul, that you claim to have no idea what kind of information people might want to post to Facebook but keep private seems like a problem. One clear example that I often think about: a mother who left an abusive partner and now wants to be able to post updates and kid photos etc. but only let approved friends view them, not for example family members of the abuser. Very reasonable, and something that used to be the default on Facebook. Now that is something a user could opt-into today, but other things like "I 'like' the children's toystore at Mall 205" is no longer able to be kept private. That is bad. - Marshall Kirkpatrick

Marshall, I never said that. It's easy to imagine things that people don't want public (pretty much everything in my email, for starters). What I asked is not for hypotheticals though, but what people here were concerned about personally. I find it's much more informative to get direct concerns rather than concerns that people imagine other people having. - Paul Buchheit

Ok, fair enough, sorry to have mischarecterized this: "I'm curious what everyone here is putting on their fb that is so secret? Maybe I'm doing it wrong. There are certainly things that I don't want out there (like my credit card numbers), but I'm not going to put that on my fb profile." The scenario described above isn't a hypothetical, fwiw, it's exactly where one of my close friends is on Facebook. - Marshall Kirkpatrick

Paul, if I'm worried about certain things becoming public on FB, why would I tell you exactly what I fear becoming public when this is a public thread on FriendFeed and will be on Google in 5 minutes if it isn't already? - Spidra Webster

Spidra, I meant the class of info (e.g. my credit card number), not the specific info (559234325323425). - Paul Buchheit

Paul, you are so pimp and I mean that in the best way possible. - Scoble, Alex Scoble

Thanks Alex :) - Paul Buchheit

I like Friendfeed for these kind of discussions. - Ashish

I understand, but some stuff doesn't neatly fall into that category (credit card #, financial details) and even talking about it in general would basically give the game away. I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the folks who take the attitude "there is no such thing as privacy on the internet and you're a sucker for expecting there to be any" are men. Men, as a general category, are not as subject to stalking, domestic violence and rape. - Spidra Webster

Paul, I think you've hit the nail on the head, if only for my own issue with Facebook. I don't mind that there are services that are public: I'm fully aware that my FriendFeed and Twitter profiles are public, and I want them that way. What gets me about Facebook is that, ostensibly, there's some claim Facebook is making that privacy is an important thing, but it's so incredibly difficult to make choices about that privacy: I feel completely out of control of my data on Facebook. I spent like an hour trying to figure out what exactly was public and why I couldn't make choices on some information before giving up. Why isn't Facebook's privacy policy and user experience as simple as Twitter or FriendFeed? - Mark Trapp

Thanks, Paul. And the expiration date? - Bruce Lewis

Being a man, I can't win that debate Spidra. - Paul Buchheit

10/10 I think. - Paul Buchheit

I personally consider facebook to be a private sphere (following people/family that I know enough that I would consider inviting them to my daughters wedding). There are a lot of things that I currently share on facebook that I would not share on twitter. For example, one of my daughters is having a heart surgery on Monday. She is getting a lot of support on facebook and I will use facebook to let people know how the operation went. Is it that hard to conceive that there are different privacy spheres and that to people facebook is probably the most private on? - Edwin Khodabakchian

Mark, part of the problem is that efforts to simplify the privacy controls (which I agree are very complicated) are generally not well received, because it means taking away options. - Paul Buchheit

Edwin, I posted all of my daughter's surgeries on her blog (not that I'm saying everyone should do that). I can understand that not everyone feels comfortable with that, but I'm still curious if there's a specific fear, or just a general discomfort? - Paul Buchheit

My take is that it is not so much privacy that people are upset about (although I'm sure that there are people who are genuinely upset about privacy), but an interrupted feeling of closeness. - Clare Dibble

Paul, maybe it isn't about "winning". Maybe it's about entertaining the idea that some people have different experiences in life. That while you and others may be fine with the wall of the garden being knocked down, others aren't. And those others may have very valid reasons for feeling that way. It's about trying to put yourself in their shoes and imagine what it might be like to be in that position. - Spidra Webster

Paul - I'm curious to get your take on the Facebook social advertising model and monetization strategy with respect to how our public data is being used to drive revenue. This post touches upon some of the issues/challenges that I see: http://markmaunder.com/2010... - Brian Daniel Eisenberg

Paul, I understand that, but there are still things that just seem anti-user, even considering how much pushback you guys get on changing things. A couple of examples: you can't wholesale delete classes of items (like the activity on the wall), you can't prevent activity (like commenting and changing your profile) from appearing on your wall or your friends' newsfeeds, and, if you've been able to find the option to do so, deleting an account takes two weeks to do. - Mark Trapp

You're right, winning is a poor choice of words. What I meant to say was that the statement implied to me that I simply couldn't understand because I'm a man. - Paul Buchheit

I love social media and have participated in it extensively since getting on the 'net. It's not that I don't want to participate. It's that I want to be in control or at least notified AHEAD OF TIME of what is public and what isn't. Facebook keeps moving the goalposts and not being upfront with users about it. They do a piss poor job of communicating with users. They implement new policies they know wear away at privacy and instead of making them opt-in, they make them opt-out. They also purposely make it hard for the average person to find out how to opt-out, and opt-out completely. I erased my interests. They put them right back in there. That's completely disrespectful to users. Then today I found an app installed in my profile that I never agreed to. I was never shown a screen to agree or disagree. - Spidra Webster

My person view is that I'm very likely to share information publicly but get hesitant when settings are changed without me changing them. I like the concept of Open Social but let me decide that I want to share my Pandora channels with my Facebook friends, not the other way around. The fear is that FB is deciding what info to link together and if you don't pay attention new links will happen every day. AND it is tied to all connections or public, not just a subset of friends. The User wants to feel empowered to allow information to be shared. - manielse (Mark Nielsen)

Hey, Paul, I was just kidding with you about the Kool-Aid thing, man. To lump my light-hearted jest in with 'Nazi' is a bit much and I think you know that. - Akiva

Sorry Akiva. - Paul Buchheit

What I mean is like a group of friends hanging out, cracking inside jokes in a public place when and outsider wanders by and tries to join the fun. Following peoples daily rituals and struggles is a form of intimacy and people literally feel a bit naked in front of the world when that goes to a close group of friends to "everyone". But we have seen communities of strangers become good friends because of it here on friendfeed. - Clare Dibble

Yeah, I think that's a pretty good example Clare. It changes people's behavior when they don't know who is listening. However, once all of your family, co-workers, etc are on there, I feel like a lot of that is already lost because it's such a diverse group. - Paul Buchheit

No social network has gotten the "Circles of friends" piece right yet. There are friends and then there are FRIENDS. Then there are co-workers and CO-WORKERS. Then family, classmates, etc. Each of those grouping a person has a different set of "openness" with. I want a professional image with Co-Workers but maybe be a little more open (passing a NSFW joke) to other sets of friends. - manielse (Mark Nielsen)

The controls for privacy (and much of the UI in general) are too byzantine on Facebook. One gets the feeling it's set up like insurance, where you're meant not to get past certain steps. I'm not saying that's how it was designed - just that it feels that way. All that said, people need to take more personal responsibility for what they share online. And there IS reason to be careful. I received hate mail at my home based on my name and city appearing in the Contra Costa Times (http://www.flickr.com/photos...) I know my own limits to sharing online and where I share them. - AJ Kohn

Using the Pandora example: I may listen to Death Metal and now my HR rep looks me over for a promotion as they now have a new image of me. HR would have never looked at Pandora before this FB linkage. It's a hypothetical but those stories will happen. - manielse (Mark Nielsen)

Paul, I think you provided a public service yesterday by kindly allowing people to flog you as an effigy for their anger over the Facebook changes. Kind of like being in the wrong place at the right time. - Martha

Not a specific fear. Just a feeling of discomfort. - Edwin Khodabakchian

Mark, if your HR rep overlooks you for promotion based on musical tastes, you should consider looking for a new job. I know that's not practical for everyone, but in general we should fix problems, not hide them. - Paul Buchheit

It would be convenient if no one ever felt any discomfort about sharing personal information with arbitrary people, but I don't think that's likely to be common any time soon. I think people will always be embarrassed about something. That's just the nature of social groups. - Seth

Paul, do you really think there is a place where promotions are not based on what the powers that be think of that person? - Clare Dibble

It was an example but one that can happen. Openness will not fix stereotypes and bias. Many non-web companies and people are not ready for this new world of full transparency. I'm only playing Devil's Advocate btw because I believe in privacy/security first, openness as a feature. - manielse (Mark Nielsen)

Of course it's an issue Clare, though I expect it's a bigger problem for things like race and gender, which are much harder to hide. - Paul Buchheit

Seth, I suspect some cultures have much more fear and embarrassment than others, and that the difference is driven in part by secrecy. People are embarrassed because they feel uniquely weird/defective. They will feel better if they know they're not alone. - Paul Buchheit

I'm still proud of my bus/taxi metaphor. =) - Andrew C (✓)

Paul, I'm sure there's some of that, but there are lots of other issues tied to the things people choose not to share. For example, if I had an ongoing serious medical issue, I might just not want to get into it with everyone I meet, even if it's not something I'm ashamed of. - Seth

Just so that no legends are created here, here is the actual "Nazi reference", which was specifically NOT raised against either Paul or Facebook, but against the WORDING of some of the arguments: "Chris/Darren, just because 'they did it in a VERY impressive and powerful way' doesn't mean we all have to like it. The same could be said e.g. for the Nazi's taking over Germany. [Later..] Jesse, I was merely referring to Chris' use of "they did it in a VERY impressive and powerful way", to which you agreed. As in: that alone isn't a freaking criterion for anything." So if anyone feels sorry for Paul based on that, I don't know what... - Alex Schleber

Yeah, it's just that the arrival of Nazi's are usually a bad sign for a discussion. - Paul Buchheit

Well, Facebook's 500M users raises the stakes by a good bit. Don't forget, Paul, you're on the inside looking out, we're on the outside looking in. There's no getting around that. - Alex Schleber

Paul, you say: "I suspect some cultures have much more fear and embarrassment than others, and that the difference is driven in part by secrecy. People are embarrassed because they feel uniquely weird/defective. They will feel better if they know they're not alone." --- Now you're really starting to freak me out with this Orwell-Speak. I am dead serious, maybe check for group think every once in a while. - Alex Schleber

What Orwell-Speak Alex? People form support groups for a reason. - Paul Buchheit

Alex, I get the impression that Paul's question isn't about Facebook at all. This is something he's been talking about since before Facebook approached FriendFeed. - Bruce Lewis

Yeah, I'm one of the people who thought Facebook was too closed. - Paul Buchheit

Paul, I thought Facebook was too closed, too. That's why I chose to use networks like Twitter and Friendfeed. I left Facebook for the people who wanted a closed network, because that's of high value to a lot of people. With Facebook abandoning its original vision of a closed network with close control over who you share information with, I'd argue that it's lost the very thing that made it different and valuable. And opening it up hasn't made it more valuable to me, either. - Jandy

One question: it seems that with likes improving both user profile information and metadata around a lot of the fresh/interesting content around the web, Facebook has enough moving parts to, in an aggregate/privacy safe fashion, create a very competitive search solution, one that Google might have trouble competing with because of inferior profile information. Is there a reason why Facebook is so aggressive with regard to privacy? Isn't search the big monetization opportunity? - Edwin Khodabakchian

Fine, that's your right, Paul. But why do all of the other FB users have to be on board? If they wanted super open, they would have been on Friendfeed like the rest of us, no? But people flocked into FB to a large extent because of the "Walled Garden" feel. - Alex Schleber

Edwin, I doubt that you'll believe me, but I contrary to popular opinion, it's not about monetization. - Paul Buchheit

So then what is Zuck's grand ultimate vision, Paul? If you're allowed to say, just tell us. - Alex Schleber

Alex, "to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected". - Paul Buchheit

I have huge respect for you so I believe you. May be you should have started instant personalization with some non profit organizations and demonstrate the power of more open in a different context. Specially given how much bad rap Yelp has been getting lately. - Edwin Khodabakchian

Edwin, if it were up to me, that's not the only thing that would be different about instant personalization. - Paul Buchheit

"they will feel better" = Orwell-Speak. And BTW, support groups place an absolute premium on privacy. If you're found out to be divulging details spoken in private within the group, you're likely to be booted. Please, leave the psychology to the psychologists/counselors (and Zuck's bit of undergrad psych that Scoble is so in love with doesn't count either - I'd say he knows just enough to be a little dangerous in terms of sucking people in). - Alex Schleber

"to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected" --- I thought that's what the entire Web was for?! It would seem he took a rather indirect path to that then, wouldn't you say? - Alex Schleber

Alex, my daughter was in the hospital for three months and we chronicled the entire thing on her blog. Not only did we meet other people as a result, but other people in similar situations said that it really helped to see her story. This isn't theoretical for me, and it's not "Orwell-Speak". - Paul Buchheit

I thought FB was just private enough (before). Again, different tools, different benefits. For example, allowing just everyone to email me on LinkedIn would /reduce/ LI's utility, not increase it... - Andrew C (✓)

Why does he think he needs to "give people the power"? Are we all defective then in his view? - Alex Schleber

Seriously? - Paul Buchheit

Paul, I am very sorry about whatever happened to your daughter, and am glad if you and/or anyone else found comfort in sharing very openly online. But you cannot simply extrapolate from your experience to everyone elses. Therein lies the rub exactly. You persist despite the fact that people on the prior thread were disagreeing with you somewhere around 5:1. - Alex Schleber

How do you mean? - Alex Schleber

Your "we are all defective" line, as though every tool-maker is insulting humanity. Is truth a matter of opinion for you? - Paul Buchheit

People aren't socially broken when they adjust their behaviour and public face to fit certain contexts. I would argue that (within reason) such behaviour is actually well-adjusted. (sorry, I'm catching up in bits and pieces here and my point with this was related to the Pandora/death metal hypothetical.) - Andrew C (✓)

Also, if everyone agreed with me, there would be no point in discussing it :) - Paul Buchheit

Not every toolmaker gives out business cards that read: "I'm CEO, Bitch!" - Alex Schleber

Alex, I think he (Zuck) sees the software as a way to HELP people more easily share and connect. Of course, we can do that without FB (or the internet for that matter), but these tools allow us to do it more efficiently. For example, right now FF is allowing us to engage in a discussion about our FB privacy concerns with Paul. I would say that's incredibly empowering. - Chip Ramsey

Maybe "incredibly" is a bit of a stretch, even though, as we all agreed on above, Friendfeed has been pretty awesome. Facebook is another story... - Alex Schleber

Well, you have access to someone who can make a difference at Facebook. I wonder if the opportunity hasn't been squandered. Paul, do you feel you actually have a better understanding of people's concerns than before you made your initial post? - Chip Ramsey

Not dramatically, but discussing something with a semi-hostile crowd is always somewhat enlightening, often in unexpected ways. - Paul Buchheit

Thanks for taking the time to try to understand Paul - Chris Myles

Flame fest turned into BBQ. Lemonade out of lemons. I like. - Josh Haley

See, the world is good. I love BBQ :) - Paul Buchheit

Semi-hostile = less heated = slow-cook BBQ - Bruce Lewis from fftogo

Paul, FWIW, I know you're a smart guy, and I sincerely hope that you're a good guy too, who would speak up (and maybe even quit) if something at FB became a real problem. Of course for that to happen you first have to recognize it as a problem, so if this discussion sticks in your mind someday in the future, then it will have all been worth it. - Alex Schleber

Alex, I'm sorry if I'm asking you to repeat yourself, but would you mind listing the top few things you think Facebook could do to alleviate your concerns? I know this is an emotional issue for a lot of people, but I think the less emotional and more concise the list, the better it will be. Although there is nothing I can do about FB, I'm working on a business collaboration tool (that has public-facing information) that would benefit from the insight. I would really appreciate the feedback. Who knows, it may help Paul understand your position a little better too? ;) - Chip Ramsey

Stepping back, I think that I understand better Paul's passion about making the world more open. I think that there are 2 issues: 1) the perception that facebook is doing this to better profile people and better target them with advertisement. 2) it will take time for people to overcome their "discomfort" of living in the open and it is very important for them to feel in control - right now they feel that facebook is changing setting behind their back and this mistrust is only going to increase the discomfort level. Instead of facebook pushing people to the open, it should promote the value of open and let users decide when and how they want to take the jump. - Edwin Khodabakchian

Paul: You make a lot of good points regarding FB and your personal ideas on privacy. Paradoxically, by trashing privacy, what you and FB are ACTUALLY doing, is making people less transparent, because there's no trust that we can keep private info (or conversations) safe on FB any more. I wouldn't worry though - 99% of users have no idea what FB are doing regarding privacy and you are way too big to suffer. You can (literally) do anything you want. - Jim Connolly

Privacy / control settings should maybe just be a first-order element on the page, not a tab in a settings area. The mechanism should be simple enough to fit in a 100-200px tall box. If home page is a dashboard, then this control panel should be somewhere there, wouldn't you think? - Christopher Galtenberg

(Not do this with all control panel elements, obviously. Just those of first-order importance. FB should want this, to obviate its most prominent achilles heel.) - Christopher Galtenberg

Under Get Connected, a Privacy section with 4-6 simple on/off toggles. Sweetness, problem solved. - Christopher Galtenberg

MOAR BBQ - Otto

I am so going on a spending spree with Paul's credit card. First purchase: BBQ for everyone! - Laura Norvig

Chip, I've been writing up some points late-late last night, getting things in order for a future post. As for Paul/Facebook, it seems pretty clear that they've made up their mind, even though their users already told them with Beacon that they didn't want all of this automatic public stuff, thank you. Apparently, that's not what Zuck wanted to hear. - Alex Schleber

...Paradoxically, it is FB's either/or stance on this that's at the heart of the problem: Who says they couldn't keep their users' privacy as protected as possible, while also doing useful/innovative/profitable things with the data? I fundamentally disagree that it is somehow necessary to hand as much data as they are doing off to either FB Apps (that's long been a thorn/nuisance) or now to all sorts of 3rd party sites. - Alex Schleber

I just read all these comments and the ones from yesterday. Before my brain escapes out my ears, I figured I'd get right down to the fundamental issue here: Paul asks this a lot: "What is the specific fear you have with some info being public?" but the problem is that the question itself is missing the point. There does not have to be a specific fear for people to want to keep their own information private. Privacy has nothing to do with threat elimination or security or prevention of a specific issue. Privacy is a desire. Sometimes I want some information to be private because that information is simply none of your damn business. It's not about any specific reason, and it's not necessarily rational. But it is what it is and it ain't going to change. Information that I want to be private had better be private and I have to be able to *see* that it's private, or I'm going to raise nine kinds of hell about it. Most everybody feels this way. People who don't get it don't have to get it, but they had better conform to it if they want the rest of us to be comfortable with using their services. And that's that. Time for BBQ! - Otto

I just have to say, OOOH YEAAAAH!!! :-) - Jesse Stay

+1 Sam Wood. - Alex Schleber

Well said, Sam. "Why can't you change the nature of what you want? Glass house and all, it's the ideal, haven't you heard? Why can't you just conform?" Well, dammit, because I don't want to, ok? Do you want me as a user or not? - Christopher Galtenberg

Alex, you wrote to Paul: "You persist despite the fact that people on the prior thread were disagreeing with you somewhere around 5:1." These statistics are flawed. People who disagreed were much more likely to comment. I am not particularly exercised about the issue and have higher priority uses of my time than getting into an argument here. I suspect the same is true of many others. The "5:1" comes from a highly biased sample. My lack of comment should not be taken to mean anything. - Ruchira S. Datta

And we have already given a fair number of specific examples where privacy is still a desired/assumed good. And while Jesse has been busy calling us paranoid (the only ad hominem in the entire debate so far BTW) and that we should assume that anything we put into the Internet to just be public, the reality is that that would simply reduce the number of Internet based services we use SIGNIFICANTLY (online banking, shopping, IM/email, dating, etc.). ... - Alex Schleber

...See, the assumption used to be that if your site is password protected, then the stuff inside is at least a lot more private than the Internet at large. Yes, there can be screw-ups/glitches/what have you, but those AREN'T BY DESIGN. Facebook used to be that way: Without login, you couldn't see much of anything. Without somebody being your friend, you couldn't see much of anything about them. - Alex Schleber

Ruchira: Well, obviously I cannot say anything about a sample that doesn't exist (I was talking about the thread). BTW, your statement that "People who disagreed were much more likely to comment" is merely your opinion. Unless you get some stats to back that up (always question when someone trots out the "silent majority"). And fine, even if it were an even split, are therefore our concerns somehow less valid? Sam Wood just gave a pretty good explanation of how Paul's entire premise is at least open to question. - Alex Schleber

Here's an idea that could settle things pretty quickly a to user intent: With no equivocation, Facebook could do a forced choice for each user on login: 1) I want everything to be completely private, no one but my friends sees nothing. 2) I want everything to be completely open. 3) I want to muddle through with the detailed settings somewhere in the middle,which will be my responsibiliy. - Alex Schleber

...THAT would be transparent. A fair up or down vote, with no one left out due to misunderstandings. Of course FB/Zuck/Paul et al. will never go for that, given how much they've already finagled past users. - Alex Schleber

FWIW I stopped trying to defend it all in that thread because it became hostile. I'm sure there were others afraid to comment, on both sides, as well. - Jesse Stay

I just put my responses here: http://friendfeed.com/glenc... - I like big Botts

Unsurprisingly, a 300 comment flame-fest erupts from a post about a 300 comment flame-fest. - Carter ♥ HTML5

Someone needs to create a plugin that when you click on it the Kool-Aid man comes out and says, "OOOH YEAAAAH!" - Jesse Stay

Kind of like the Duck plugin - Jesse Stay

Really this has been remarkably reasonable thread given that the subject matter is charged IMO. No one threatened to delete their Friendeed account yet... :) We know how some of those emo threads on here can go... - Alex Schleber

The Facebook Kool-Aid Man? I.e. Mark Z.? - Alex Schleber

i'm deleting everything everywhere! *stomps off whimpering* - Joe The Sausage

:P - Joe The Sausage

+1 Carter, though I disagree with the "flame-fest" characterization. Paul is thereby making this too easy on himself IMO. - Alex Schleber

I don't think I ever saw Zuck (or any Facebook employee) deleting their Buzz account after their privacy problems ;-) - Jesse Stay

Okay, done flaming... ;-) - Jesse Stay

"to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected" - Paul, I think if, instead of changing the visibility status of previously posted content to a more public setting, FB had said "going forward, your posts will be more public, but the privacy status of your past posts hasn't changed," users would feel that their 'contract' with FB had been changed without their consent. Also, some of the language around privacy - "we just made those drunk college pictures of yours publicly searchable to improve your Facebook experience!" - hits a tinny note, too. - John Craft

There was rightly a lot of scorn heaped upon Google for that and all the other Buzz screw-ups (one of the key one's being not being Friendfeed :). You're evading, Jesse. - Alex Schleber

Alex, I'm just saying, so long as we're talking about Kool-Aid and pointing to Zuck: http://staynalive.com/article... - Jesse Stay

http://mattmckeon.com/faceboo... <- good timeline, so we have a bit of a basis to discuss from - Alex Schleber

Huh. DID ANYBODY NO that Kool-Aid now makes fizzy tablet versions? http://brands.kraftfoods.com/koolaid... - Otto

Jesse: Haha, while we're on the subject of distracting from the subject at hand... -> http://www.boingboing.net/2010... - Alex Schleber

"good timeline, so we have a bit of a basis to discuss from" - and for many (all?) of those expansions, a user's awareness was "hey! we just made you more public!" not "in a few days we're going to make you more public." The end result is a loss of trust from FB users who valued the privacy. - John Craft

http://www.boingboing.net/2010... One great thing for Facebook about all of these Facebook privacy angst stories is that, for the first time, these posts get significantly more "Shares"/"Likes"/etc. than Retweets. Usually, as can be seen from Jesse's Chrome OS post above, tech/geek stuff has 65 Retweets and 3 FB Shares... ;) - Alex Schleber

Two great lines sum it up: “Facebook has become more scary than fun”, “If I’m looking for a day care for my 6-year-old, I’m going to put that in my status message, not do a Google search.” http://nyti.ms/bqzmm6 - Christopher Galtenberg

I love how the mainstream press refuses to print danah's name in lower case. Or it just gets copyedited out all the time but that would bother me if I were her. - Laura Norvig

BTW, here is a great tool to verify what Facebook currently really makes public about you, you can see that most everything has already been subsumed into a huge mish-mash of "Likes"... http://zesty.ca/faceboo... and apparently, Hawai'i is now an organization, and Psychology and Philosophy are "Book Genres"...sigh. - Alex Schleber

Wow, just saw that Facebook "disappeared" my work & edu data in the transition...smooth DB work, guys...it will be interesting to see how much data is actually lost in these coming days & weeks. I have pretty recent counts from FB Ads on about 50 keywords, will compare those with the new #s soon and report back. - Alex Schleber

I'd feel a LOT more comfortable if Facebook's misson was "to give people the power to share and the power to be open and connected (when appropriate)", and if the tools backed that up and retained the choices *not* to be more open (when appropriate), instead of "to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected". That whole *MAKE* thing is just way too tyrannical. - Tinfoil 2.0

@LogEx: Interesting, I hadn't really caught 'make' as a forced connotation but can see how it could be interpreted as such. Would "enable a more open and connected world" be better? - AJ Kohn

Yes, "make" is what FB has been doing at least since November and "enable" would be better, but the flipside should be explicitly stated too... to allow each user to choose where they want to live on the publicity-privacy spectrum is also essential (even moreso for vulnerable populations). In real life, most people have more privacy [read: choice and control] than publicity. Online communities should support that. - Tinfoil 2.0

@LogEx: prezactly! - vicster

http://techcrunch.com/2010... - Alex Schleber

Oh, and apparently now FB will stab Farmville in the back too...the nerve...what about the animals... :) http://techcrunch.com/2010... - Alex Schleber

Alex, thank you for the detailed response. I think your suggestion for a simplified three level system is reasonable. I was leaning towards a similar approach as well – settings that are very easy to explain and should rarely (if ever) need to be changed. Although, things get tricky when you're trying to implement an API that provides useful functionality to the third-party apps users choose to authorize. - Chip Ramsey

It seems to me that the only way to keep API access simple (and useful) is to tell the user that they shouldn't authorize any application they don't want to have full access to their information. In my opinion, expecting users to manage privacy settings on a per application basis is asking too much. Also, allowing customized settings per user and application makes life much more difficult on application developers and probably renders a whole class of collaborative applications useless. - Chip Ramsey

^^ I'm talking about my own experiences designing an app BTW. Not trying to get everyone riled up again. - Chip Ramsey

Inspired by this discussion, I have a FB feature request: Facebook Embarrassing Trends, a list of text strings updated hourly. These would be text strings that appeared in a high percentage of Facebook updates that were explicitly made private recently. "Photos from last night's drunken revel" for example. The data would be aggregated, so it wouldn't embarrass any individual. But we'd learn something about ourselves as a society. - Larry Hosken

Another real example of unintended consequences even only social graphs (i.e. friends lists): http://www.boston.com/bostong... And in case Jesse or anyone else wants to say something like: "Well, you shouldn't want to keep that private anyway" --- this is NOT a discussion over whether anyone anywhere has legitimate privacy wishes, about their sexual orientation or anything else. - Alex Schleber

...Which BTW still can have immediate real world consequences for members of the U.S. military as you well know. Also, here's this: http://www.binint.com/2010... - Alex Schleber

Chip, that's the thing, if you asked any users straight up whether anything should be loosened up for the particular delight/easement/practicality of any third-party apps (or even FB itself for that matter), you know the answer is extremely likely to be a resounding NO. Given that, if you are changing things in the background, largely in the fine-print so to speak, just don't delude yourself that it's not sneaky. - Alex Schleber

Also, is Louis Gray paranoid too here? -> http://www.google.com/buzz... "Facebook has added many FriendFeed-like features, but they have also acted in a way that makes me uncomfortable in terms of changing the rules of privacy in the middle of the game, while also locking away other pieces of content that should, in my mind, be public. In my position as somebody who manages Facebook pages for multiple clients, I could never delete my account (and leave them rudderless), but simply expect that all my data there will be discoverable and public and searchable, despite their promises to the contrary. ..." Great, well-reasoned post about the state of social BTW. - Alex Schleber

Chip, interesting that WIRED just said about the same thing as I did: "Facebook could start with a very simple page of choices: I’m a private person, I like sharing some things, I like living my life in public. Each of those would have different settings for the myriad of choices, and all of those users could then later dive into the control panel to tweak their choices. That would be respectful design - but Facebook isn’t about respect — it’s about re-configuring the world’s notion of what’s public and private." - http://www.wired.com/epicent... - Alex Schleber

Here is an interesting post from Jeff Jarvis on the subject: http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010... - Edwin Khodabakchian

Here is an interesting visualization which showcases the perception problem facebook is having of pushing too aggressively users towards public http://mattmckeon.com/faceboo... - Edwin Khodabakchian

OK, so Scoble, after initially being somewhat reserved about the consequences of Facebook's actions, is now 110% on board it seems, spying on people's odd musical tastes on Pandora was just too much to resist I guess... -> http://scobleizer.com/2010... - Alex Schleber

Thanks for the discussion, (gg Alex, Edwin you held for some good points) I enjoyed those two threads a lot. If anyone wanted to know what I think: I share a lot, web pages, thoughts, etc. And any private stuff, I keep in my head for now as it's lot more work openly. We'll see with examples in the future. Got a theory on private stuff: Unless it's data like address or financial details (directly damaging to a person, losing money, frauds), most of things that are not shared to all is probably because there's a problem behind the freeing of that info. Control as someone said, so you don't have to deal with those problems publicly. I see, let's say Kim Kardashian, when she was 'hacked' yesterday on twitter, if someone posts something incriminating, or shocking, she'd have to answer on that situation, as the info was public and generated a response. Paparazzis taking pics from a newly formed couple on a beach far, far away. They have to answer on that on their returning trip, journalists gets to follow them 3 times more, and gets them some maybe not fully desired publicity. I think that references to the problems some have. Sharing 'additional PR work' is not in the interest of some. If it was done supposedly without their consent (paparazzi, FB, whatever), then comes the rage. If I don't log for a couple of months and discover all those changes as I would've theoretically only posted for that community through the API without being really active on it, I see the kind of deception some people have with their 'private matters' if any service configuration wasn't worked on before use. Have all, a very great BBQ today! \o, - Zu from AOD