Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Jeffrey Goldberg Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps Subject: Re: advice for an acquaintance Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:55:32 -0500 Lines: 37 Message-ID: <910nskF8jsU1@mid.individual.net> References: <66459283324641896.673730g.kreme-gmail.com@news.eternal-september.org> Reply-To: jeffrey+news@goldmark.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net 4l4nvv7MHwYsmwthzy1w/ghVyOn9laLi9tT4RWQqGD7QTgFDBh Cancel-Lock: sha1:Q7nAq5YoAP+EI6WTMH/6zDiDI7w= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Mnenhy/0.8.2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 In-Reply-To: Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.sys.mac.apps:1389 On 11-04-17 11:31 AM, Fred Moore wrote: > This is not meant as a personal affront to you, Wes, so please don't > take it personally; but I always liked the epithet: > > Twitter is for twits; > Facebook is for fools. > > Facebook has always made a joke of security. First you had to jump > through a kazillion hoops to set the most basic protections. I think that much of this misses the point of Facebook. It is a mechanism for sharing/publishing information about yourself. If you don't want the information published, then don't post it to Facebook. It seems fairly simple to me. They did fix the thing that I hated most about their privacy policy, that your "Friends" could be easily tricked into allowing data about you which you had restricted to "Friends only" would be passed to advertisers. Shortly before they put in that fix, I wrote a blog post about Facebook selling "your data". It's here if anyone is interested. It also describes why, despite my knowledge of how they operate, I am happy to use Facebook. http://liver.goldmark.org/post/625455300/the-deal-with-facebook-and-your-data Cheers, -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://goldmark.org/jeff/ I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts Reply-To address is valid