How we "work" for Facebook

[sparrow]

Everything you suspected about Facebook in a concise opinion piece:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/22/opinion/rushkoff-facebook-changes/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

[Night Elf]

Yep. People who play Zynga games (on facebook) are also up in arms about things. I always get a kick out of how upset people get when their free product isn't the way they want and then start demanding changes.

 

It is what it is. FB isn't great, but it's free and I like it.

[Mrs Mungo]

Everything you suspected about Facebook in a concise opinion piece:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/22/opinion/rushkoff-facebook-changes/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

 

Yep. People who play Zynga games (on facebook) are also up in arms about things. I always get a kick out of how upset people get when their free product isn't the way they want and then start demanding changes.

 

It is what it is. FB isn't great, but it's free and I like it.

 

But, Night, your comment doesn't really fit in the context of the piece. Take the final comment in the piece, "that's because on Facebook we're not the customers. We are the product." The problem with maintaining this sort of view is that if you make it too complicated and/or not human-friendly, then people will stop using it. Some of my friends are already defecting to google-plus. It might be a delicate balance between meeting the needs of advertisers/market-researchers with the *people*, but it's one you must maintain if you intend to keep your product alive.

[Frontier Mom]

But, Night, your comment doesn't really fit in the context of the piece. Take the final comment in the piece, "that's because on Facebook we're not the customers. We are the product." The problem with maintaining this sort of view is that if you make it too complicated and/or not human-friendly, then people will stop using it. Some of my friends are already defecting to google-plus. It might be a delicate balance between meeting the needs of advertisers/market-researchers with the *people*, but it's one you must maintain if you intend to keep your product alive.

 

:iagree: I don't like to be the product with my personal information. He is also moving up the richest people list very quickly with a "free" product. Something doesn't seem right. I signed up for Google+ per a thread on this forum. It makes much more sense to me. Not ready to let my FB go yet but close.

[Parrothead]

Eventually FB will crash and burn. Humans are always looking for the next big thing. Google Plus anyone?

 

But isn't Google out to make a profit? I'm sure they are selling user info also. The only way not to be part of the product is to ditch those sites all together. Realistically, who is going to do that?

 

I'm trying to remember what I did for fun before the internet. I really don't have a clue. And I don't use FB or Google Plus.

[sparrow]

My husband and I were discussing the incredible amount of information FB will glean for their corporations with 'Timeline'. They'll be able to see, over the years, how your choices in music, food, and movies change. When/where you vacationed and how that changed. The kinds of cars you bought. All information you voluntarily shared....well, I didn't, but just about everyone I know does ;).

 

Unfortunately, I'm kind of tethered to it for business purposes (convenient isn't it), but I'm watching even more carefully the things that I post on my personal page.

[Night Elf]

But, Night, your comment doesn't really fit in the context of the piece. Take the final comment in the piece, "that's because on Facebook we're not the customers. We are the product." The problem with maintaining this sort of view is that if you make it too complicated and/or not human-friendly, then people will stop using it. Some of my friends are already defecting to google-plus. It might be a delicate balance between meeting the needs of advertisers/market-researchers with the *people*, but it's one you must maintain if you intend to keep your product alive.

 

I guess so, but I personally have a difficult time getting upset at a service that is free. And the information gathering doesn't bother me. I'm a very pro-technology kind of person. And will other services like FB not gather information?

 

FB has gotten a little annoying but it's not horrible. I have to click on the little triangle to make the 'top stories' go away. I don't care about the feed on the right that says what people are doing. I think that is kind of cool actually.

 

My dd19 tried Google+ because some of her friends did and none of them really like it. They say it's more complicated than FB. I guess couple that with the fact that they don't like having to take the time to click on a little blue triangle to get rid of the top stories and I can tell them they are lazy. My dd laughed at that. She says she has to think too much about schoolwork to have to think so hard for something she plays on in her free time.

 

I guess if all my family and friends to go to Google+, I'll follow. I don't know anything about it really.

[Night Elf]

I'm trying to remember what I did for fun before the internet. I really don't have a clue. And I don't use FB or Google Plus.

 

I watched tv and read lots and lots of books. I guess that was the equivalent of the whole 'living your life in your basement' argument that I see about using the internet to be social. I'm more social ON the internet than I was without it!

[Mrs Mungo]

I guess so, but I personally have a difficult time getting upset at a service that is free. And the information gathering doesn't bother me. I'm a very pro-technology kind of person. And will other services like FB not gather information?

 

I think our information is going to be gathered one way or another at this point in history.

 

FB has gotten a little annoying but it's not horrible. I have to click on the little triangle to make the 'top stories' go away. I don't care about the feed on the right that says what people are doing. I think that is kind of cool actually.

 

The problem that I see is that there are a lot of older people and/or non-techy people on my facebook. It's better for *those* people if facebook keeps things simple. A bunch of my friends were demanding people unsubscribe from them, not realizing: 1. that would mean nothing that they posted would show up in my newsfeed and 2. that they can stop people from subscribing to them within their own profile.

 

My dd19 tried Google+ because some of her friends did and none of them really like it. They say it's more complicated than FB.

 

Right, and some of facebook's recent changes sort of mirror what google+ was doing. So, that doesn't really make sense for facebook.

[usetoschool]

My husband and I were discussing the incredible amount of information FB will glean for their corporations with 'Timeline'. They'll be able to see, over the years, how your choices in music, food, and movies change. When/where you vacationed and how that changed. The kinds of cars you bought. All information you voluntarily shared....well, I didn't, but just about everyone I know does ;).

 

Unfortunately, I'm kind of tethered to it for business purposes (convenient isn't it), but I'm watching even more carefully the things that I post on my personal page.

 

Exactly. Here is an interesting article from APM that talks about that very thing. Facebook is not provided out of the goodness of someone's heart to make us all happy and connected. They are in it for the money. Unfortunately it seems like the financial aspect is becoming more obvious to people and may limit some of the personal stuff. That makes me a little sad because it is how I keep up with some of the small details of people's lives that don't cross my path every day. I like google+ but it really is just information and cool links and kind of disconnected and clinical (in my experience). Facebook is where my friends and family live.

 

My other thought, though, is what difference does it make if they track my likes and choices and interests? I don't have to click on the ad links. And maybe they will post an ad for something that I wasn't aware of, that I like. Maybe I am naive, probably am, but why do I care if some database has information about my interests?

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Did anyone really think that FB was there to care about their feelings, though? Zuckerburg making money off of a free service isn't suspect. Don't most people know that they sell ad space?

 

I have tried Google +, but there seemed to be no way to make it private.....or private enough for my liking. It is confusing and complicated, imo.

 

I guess I never went into my FB "relationship" thinking that we were exclusive or that they really cared about me. :confused:

Edited September 23, 2011 by ThatCyndiGirl

[Mrs Mungo]

Did anyone really think that FB was there to care about their feelings, though? Zuckerburg making money off of a free service isn't suspect. Don't most people know that they sell ad space?

 

I have tried Google +, but their seemed to be no way to make it private.....or private enough for my liking. It is confusing and complicated, imo.

 

I guess I never went into my FB "relationship" thinking that we were exclusive or that they really cared about me. :confused:

 

My argument is slightly different. They need to care what their users desire because they won't have anyone to advertise to if they don't care. It's true that people are resistant to change. And sometimes, change is good even when people don't think so at first. But, if they make it too complicated they will lose some of the grandmas and technophobes. Maybe they should make it optional to receive upgrades?

[myfatherslily]

And maybe they will post an ad for something that I wasn't aware of, that I like.

 

I saw an ad the other day for Noeo science! I thought that was pretty cool. We use Noeo!:)

 

A bunch of my friends were demanding people unsubscribe from them, not realizing: 1. that would mean nothing that they posted would show up in my newsfeed and 2. that they can stop people from subscribing to them within their own profile.

 

How do you stop people from subscribing to you? I don't think I've seen that.

 

The only problem I have with Facebook is how often it changes. Just when you get comfortable, it's different again. For example, I expect that the grocery store will change it's layout from time to time. When it does, we all wander around aimlessly a couple times and then we're back to normal. What if a whole aisle was moved every two weeks? If the cash register process was slightly different once a month? Technology changes rapidly and I understand Facebook's desire to improve and update. But the constant tweaking is really wearing me down!

[Mrs Mungo]

I saw an ad the other day for Noeo science! I thought that was pretty cool. We use Noeo!:)

 

I got an ad for "Teach Them Diligently featuring Ken Hamm," :glare: I hid it and marked that it was, "against my views."

 

How do you stop people from subscribing to you? I don't think I've seen that.

Go to your profile. Under your photo you will see several items, "subscriptions" should be one of them. Depending upon how tight your facebook secutiry is, then you might have a "disallow subscribers," but that's referring to the public type. You can't not allow your friends to subscribe, but you can disallow things to be seen publicly. If I am subscribed to my friends (as we all are by default, unless you go in and change it), then that stuff shows up in my own ticker/newsfeed, but it doesn't all show up on my wall. Those are different things, and I think some people are sort of confusing them.

 

The only problem I have with Facebook is how often it changes. Just when you get comfortable, it's different again. For example, I expect that the grocery store will change it's layout from time to time. When it does, we all wander around aimlessly a couple times and then we're back to normal. What if a whole aisle was moved every two weeks? If the cash register process was slightly different once a month? Technology changes rapidly and I understand Facebook's desire to improve and update. But the constant tweaking is really wearing me down!

Good point. I get really annoyed when Target has a major overhaul because it takes months for me to figure out where everything is without thinking about it.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Eventually FB will crash and burn. Humans are always looking for the next big thing. Google Plus anyone?

 

But isn't Google out to make a profit? I'm sure they are selling user info also. The only way not to be part of the product is to ditch those sites all together. Realistically, who is going to do that?

 

I'm trying to remember what I did for fun before the internet. I really don't have a clue. And I don't use FB or Google Plus.

 

If/when I dump FB it will NOT be to sign up for Google +. That, imho, would be putting too much info onto Google (one email, blog login and then social media), which has already been demonstrated as hackable by various email hackers.

 

If I leave FB, it will be to go back to regular email and <gasp> letters.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I think our information is going to be gathered one way or another at this point in history.

 

 

 

The problem that I see is that there are a lot of older people and/or non-techy people on my facebook. It's better for *those* people if facebook keeps things simple. A bunch of my friends were demanding people unsubscribe from them, not realizing: 1. that would mean nothing that they posted would show up in my newsfeed and 2. that they can stop people from subscribing to them within their own profile.

 

 

 

Right, and some of facebook's recent changes sort of mirror what google+ was doing. So, that doesn't really make sense for facebook.

 

Were your friends telling people to unsubscribe from them or to unsubscribe from "comments and likes"? I do have some heartburn with a comment I make on a friend's post showing up in the general feed of someone I don't know. On one hand I know they could always see it when they looked at my friend's post. On the other hand, it feels creepy.

 

The whole feeling I have about FB right now is that they are like the girl in junior high who wanted to dictate to everyone was was fashionable in dress and music and who could sit at what table in the lunch room. And my response, as it was back in junior high, is "ick".

[LibraryLover]

All I can think of is Captain Renault in Casablanca:

 

" I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

[Parrothead]

If/when I dump FB it will NOT be to sign up for Google +. That, imho, would be putting too much info onto Google (one email, blog login and then social media), which has already been demonstrated as hackable by various email hackers.

 

If I leave FB, it will be to go back to regular email and <gasp> letters.

My point was, eventually FB will be obsolete. It is inevitable, human nature being what it is. Something will come along that will be better, faster, cooler. Whether that is Google Plus or something not even up and running yet is still to be determined. I was using GP as an example.

[Margo out of lurking]

..

[Mrs Mungo]

Were your friends telling people to unsubscribe from them or to unsubscribe from "comments and likes"?

 

They were saying to unsubscribe from them. It could be that they shortened what someone else was saying and said the wrong thing as a result.

 

I think my problem is that they are trying to be all things to all people. They are trying to be pinterest and google+ and everything.

[nmoira]

I've already moved primarily to Google+ (though I've got an browser extension I use to send some of the posts to facebook), but this Timeline/Open Graphs thing creeps me out. Here's a good summary:

 

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/09/facebook-wants-your-past-present-and-future-on-open-graphs-and-timelines.ars

 

If you choose to restrict visibility of your old posts, you are warned that if you change your mind, permissions will have to be manually reset for each individual post. That's a breathtaking prospect for someone who has been on FB for years, and this is precisely why they're giving no other options.

[sparrow]

Did anyone really think that FB was there to care about their feelings, though? Zuckerburg making money off of a free service isn't suspect. Don't most people know that they sell ad space?

 

I have tried Google +, but there seemed to be no way to make it private.....or private enough for my liking. It is confusing and complicated, imo.

 

I guess I never went into my FB "relationship" thinking that we were exclusive or that they really cared about me. :confused:

 

 

I sure didn't and I don't think anyone but the most insipid of users would think that FB was making a free social networking tool without data mining. I was OK with some of that. I'm just starting to get an icky feeling about the amount of information they're stockpiling now.

 

I've already moved primarily to Google+ (though I've got an browser extension I use to send some of the posts to facebook), but this Timeline/Open Graphs thing creeps me out. Here's a good summary:

 

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/09/facebook-wants-your-past-present-and-future-on-open-graphs-and-timelines.ars

 

If you choose to restrict visibility of your old posts, you are warned that if you change your mind, permissions will have to be manually reset for each individual post. That's a breathtaking prospect for someone who has been on FB for years, and this is precisely why they're giving no other options.

 

:001_huh: Wow.

[sparrow]

Another good article that articulates my icky feeling much better than I can:

 

http://www.slate.com/?id=2304425&pagenum=all

 

From the article:

 

Zuckerberg calls this "frictionless" sharing. What he means is that I don't have to bother with the "friction" of choosing to tell you that I like something. On Facebook, now, merely experiencing something is enough to trigger sharing. Once I sign up for Spotify's Facebook app, my consent is assumed: When I listen, I share. The same goes for the many other apps that Facebook's partners are launching.

....and this:

 

Three years ago, Zuckerberg noted an astonishing statistic about the Internet—every year, people share twice as much online than they did the year before. If you Liked 100 news stories last year, you'll Like 200 this year, and 400 next year. People have come to call this Zuckerberg's Law, and it's obvious that Facebook sees "sharing" as the cornerstone of its future endeavors.

It's that desensitization that I'm seeing among my own friends. They share everything. I post something on FB an average of every 2 weeks. I have friends that share every minutiae of their daily comings and goings. Don't get me started on the folks that have the countdown to when they're vacationing. "Leaving in 3 days for Aruba!" and "Sally Smith just checked in at her local airport"...please come rob the house now!

[Brilliant]

FB isn't making any ad revenue off of me...I discovered the adblock plus add-on for Firefox and haven't seen any "Lose the belly fat!" ads in over a year. :D

[Cosmos]

Were your friends telling people to unsubscribe from them or to unsubscribe from "comments and likes"? I do have some heartburn with a comment I make on a friend's post showing up in the general feed of someone I don't know. On one hand I know they could always see it when they looked at my friend's post. On the other hand, it feels creepy.

 

Can you explain this? One of my facebook friends did post a request along these lines, but I don't understand. How does my subscribing to her "comments and likes" lead to strangers seeing it? If I unsubscribe to her "comments and likes" does that mean I won't see them in my newsfeed?

 

I'm one of the non-techy people Mrs. Mungo is talking about. LOL

[cathmom]

I just ignore all the changes FB makes.

[nmoira]

I just ignore all the changes FB makes.

That's going to be difficult with Timeline/Open Graphs.

[cathmom]

That's going to be difficult with Timeline/Open Graphs.

 

It's worked so far. Guess we'll see.

[nmoira]

 

It's worked so far. Guess we'll see.

I don't think it's been implemented yet. :)

[LidiyaDawn]

 

My other thought, though, is what difference does it make if they track my likes and choices and interests? I don't have to click on the ad links. And maybe they will post an ad for something that I wasn't aware of, that I like. Maybe I am naive, probably am, but why do I care if some database has information about my interests?

 

I kinda feel the same way… I mean, who cares if people know that I "like" The Lost Boys, Gummi Bears, or The Neverending Story? Or that I drive a truck, play POGs and read National Geographic online? What are they gonna do, spit some advertising at me? *shrug*

[cathmom]

I don't think it's been implemented yet. :)

 

I meant, it's worked so far to just ignore whatever they come up with. I don't know specifically what changes you're referring to.

[nmoira]

I meant, it's worked so far to just ignore whatever they come up with. I don't know specifically what changes you're referring to.

Gotcha.

 

These are the changes I'm talking about:

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/09/facebook-wants-your-past-present-and-future-on-open-graphs-and-timelines.ars

[cathmom]

Gotcha.

 

These are the changes I'm talking about:

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/09/facebook-wants-your-past-present-and-future-on-open-graphs-and-timelines.ars

 

That looks incredibly dumb. There's no way I'd waste my time doing any of that. And I don't use any sites that could be linked (that I know of).

[Liz CA]

The whole feeling I have about FB right now is that they are like the girl in junior high who wanted to dictate to everyone was was fashionable in dress and music and who could sit at what table in the lunch room. And my response, as it was back in junior high, is "ick".

 

I always had that "icky" feeling - maybe because, by nature, I am more private.

Glad I never got on even though I can see its positive points. At this point the negatives outweigh the positives for me.

[Liz CA]

All I can think of is Captain Renault in Casablanca:

 

" I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

 

:lol::lol: Such an appropriate quote.

[74Heaven]

Time Magazine had an excellent "expose" on fb about a year ago. It was stunning how much marketing information people are willing to give away for nothing. It made me particularly nervous about the naive younger generation that does not understand that it is unwise to let the govt and other huge conglomerates have all your info.

 

Lisaj

[scrappyhappymama]

This whole hullabaloo reminds me of Chinese proverb: "If you don't want anyone to know it, don't do it."

 

Folks are getting all aflutter about "their every move" being "public" in the new ticker on the righthand side of the screen. But, their every move was already PUBLIC and available for all eyes to see, including friends of friends on the previous newsfeed. It's just a little more condensed now and I guess more obvious since it changes in real time rather than only when one refreshes the newsfeed screen. But, rather than pestering all 300 of one's friends to adjust their settings so your comments aren't as obviously public, why not just *not make any comments on the internets that you aren't comfortable letting everyone see?*

 

I actually appreciate the knowledge that whatever I choose to post or link is eminently public. It helps me think twice about what I "like" or link. I appreciate that not everyone has a strong personal filter, but if they are concerned about safety and privacy, their own restraint and good sense are a better protection than any Facebook setting.

 

Not to mention that most of my Facebook friends who are moaning the loudest about the changes and how much they want the "old" Facebook back, were just as frustrated with this version of Facebook when it first came out, and bemoaned the loss of the version before. I don't blame Facebook for ignoring the outcry, because history has shown that the users still keep coming, and will eventually defend and demand access to the the current update that they "hate." We are fickle and they know it.

 

I guess I'll reserve judgment until seeing the new timeline feature, but so far, I enjoy and intend to continue to enjoy the benefits of Facebook and will continue to hide or adjust the elements that annoy me, while exercising self-control about how much information I share.

[keptwoman]

I'm really struggling to see what the hoo ha is all about. So they are using our info to make money, well knock me down with a feather. Of course they are! And people move go G+.... Do they think Google are supplying all these services out of the goodness of their hearts?

 

I am far more bothered by the all seeing Google than I am by FB. Google see what we search for, what we send in private emails, what photos we keep, what sites we go to (via +1's should you choose to use them) what appointments we have if we use calendar. And should I make them unhappy in any way, I can loose my account for every one of those things, now that scares the crapola out of me as we do use gmail and google calendar. And people are actually advocating them as the safe choice over FB to give more info? It's laughable.

 

We choose what we put out there, and we should always bear in mind that no matter how private we think it is, it may one day be public and behave accordingly.

 

I tried G+ when it was first released. I didn't like it, it seemed less personal and full of people being wonderful. Very tiresome. I haven't looked in weeks, it may improve now it is open and more people migrate, but I personally don't think that FB is in imminent danger from the great migration.

[NittanyJen]

...and back when AOL was "the thing" to belong to, there was this much fuss every time they rolled out new changes. People hate change :lol:

 

What is reprehensible about Facebook is the delusion of allowing privacy settings, which are rendered null and void every two weeks, as the changes are never backwards compatable with people's preferences. In fact, the changes are pretty much purposely designed to undo everyone's preferences and default them back to open source as much as possible, to help condition people into having less privacy and control over personal information.

 

They are open and crass about how little they think of their customers-- the open disrespect isn't even disguised any longer. They not only think of their members as a product, but as a poorly made product at best.

[annandatje]

I'm really struggling to see what the hoo ha is all about. So they are using our info to make money, well knock me down with a feather. Of course they are! And people move go G+.... Do they think Google are supplying all these services out of the goodness of their hearts?

 

I am far more bothered by the all seeing Google than I am by FB. Google see what we search for, what we send in private emails, what photos we keep, what sites we go to (via +1's should you choose to use them) what appointments we have if we use calendar. And should I make them unhappy in any way, I can loose my account for every one of those things, now that scares the crapola out of me as we do use gmail and google calendar. And people are actually advocating them as the safe choice over FB to give more info? It's laughable.

 

We choose what we put out there, and we should always bear in mind that no matter how private we think it is, it may one day be public and behave accordingly.

 

I tried G+ when it was first released. I didn't like it, it seemed less personal and full of people being wonderful. Very tiresome. I haven't looked in weeks, it may improve now it is open and more people migrate, but I personally don't think that FB is in imminent danger from the great migration.

 

:iagree::iagree:

[annandatje]

...and back when AOL was "the thing" to belong to, there was this much fuss every time they rolled out new changes. People hate change :lol:QUOTE]

 

AOL was a paid subscription service wasn't it?

[keptwoman]

What is reprehensible about Facebook is the delusion of allowing privacy settings, which are rendered null and void every two weeks, as the changes are never backwards compatable with people's preferences. In fact, the changes are pretty much purposely designed to undo everyone's preferences and default them back to open source as much as possible, to help condition people into having less privacy and control over personal information.

 

They are open and crass about how little they think of their customers-- the open disrespect isn't even disguised any longer. They not only think of their members as a product, but as a poorly made product at best.

I keep seeing this claim, but it has not been my experience. I check my privacy settings regularly to make sure I'm locked down, and I've yet to come across FB changing things in a way which voids my privacy settings.

[sparrow]

I keep seeing this claim, but it has not been my experience. I check my privacy settings regularly to make sure I'm locked down, and I've yet to come across FB changing things in a way which voids my privacy settings.

 

I've also never found my privacy settings changed.

[NittanyJen]

I've also never found my privacy settings changed.

 

Mine have been, several times. I had things set so that the least number of people could see them. Now with the ticker and the way replying to posts work, more people can see what you post and whether you are online and what you are doing again, unless you go back through and reconfigure things. Overnight, my level of privacy settings (note, I never assume I really have any privacy anywhere on the internet, and do act accordingly; I am neither stupid nor irresponsible) went from high to very very low.

 

I have my own reasons for not wanting to make it easy for even some mundane details to be broadcast; yet FB is convenient for communicating with a specific subset of humanity.

 

It used to be possible to make this intersection happen, but FB seems determined to normalize having your whole life public.

[NittanyJen]

...and back when AOL was "the thing" to belong to, there was this much fuss every time they rolled out new changes. People hate change :lol:QUOTE]

 

AOL was a paid subscription service wasn't it?

 

I think people hate change whether they are paying directly or indirectly. That has no bearing ;)

 

You are paying Facebook with free information about yourself which s worth millions to marketers and other data miners. FB is not truly free. Nor are we in any way indebted to them.

[Oak Knoll Mom]

 

I am far more bothered by the all seeing Google than I am by FB. Google see what we search for, what we send in private emails, what photos we keep, what sites we go to (via +1's should you choose to use them) what appointments we have if we use calendar. And should I make them unhappy in any way, I can loose my account for every one of those things, now that scares the crapola out of me as we do use gmail and google calendar. And people are actually advocating them as the safe choice over FB to give more info? It's laughable.

 

I don't have a problem with google seeing more about me. Maybe I'm naive about that. My problem is facebook sharing my info, habits, etc with others.

[keptwoman]

They are only doing that in as much as you let them do that. The information being shared has changed with this new format, but the way it's being shared in the page is. In some ways it makes people who have not got their privacy shut down more obvious and able to fix it.

[keptwoman]

https://www.facebook.com/notes/clare-washbrook/facebook-privacy-issue-how-it-works-and-how-to-stop-it-if-people-comply/10150306637227702

[momma2three]

I don't have a problem with google seeing more about me. Maybe I'm naive about that. My problem is facebook sharing my info, habits, etc with others.

 

But Google is sharing that info with others too. How do you think they make money?

[Mrs Mungo]

They are only doing that in as much as you let them do that. The information being shared has changed with this new format, but the way it's being shared in the page is. In some ways it makes people who have not got their privacy shut down more obvious and able to fix it.

 

I agree. Several people didn't understand that certain things *were already visible* the ticker and such made it a little more obvious.