Bend Over, Facebook is Back

[lisarea]

This forum is terrible. It's broken and stupid.

[lisarea]

My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.

Facebook will end on March 15th

[LadyShea]

What would we do without the Weekly World News keeping us informed?

[BrotherMan]

Originally Posted by lisarea

My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.

Facebook will end on March 15th

BEWARE THE IDs of MARCH!

[fragment]

Originally Posted by lisarea

OK, point taken.

I tend to think of anonymous internet snarkers as less a group of individuals with agency and more as an inevitable natural phenomenon.

And understandably so.

But I think this might be going to the heart of my unformed fellings that something irks me about this conversation. It seems like people are placing a largish expectation on those they know, but little or no expectation on anyone else. And, the lower the opinion one has of others, the greater the expectations we have to place on those close to us with our private info.

Seems to me that in a decent society we'd expect everyone to behave somewhat decently and act accordingly, and then vilify those few loons who act out of step, rather than those who unwittingly enabled the loons by expecting ordinary standards of decency to apply. I know that's not the reality, and that teh t00bz have changed the playing board, but I don't really want to give into complete anthropo-paranoia either.

Now excuse me while I start a thread grumbling about how we didn't bother to lock our doors in my day.

[LadyShea]

I was watching some coverage of the Giffords shooting, and the newsies were at a table doing commentary with what appeared to be a vigil behind them. At least 4 people walked past that table, saw the cameras, and either waved, or walked back and forth in front of it while on the phone, probably all "I am on TV do you see me?"

This jives with my experiences with media filming. I have no problem staying off camera because there are always plenty of people trying to get in front of it and get filmed.

Your example of media never set right with me for these reasons.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by fragment

But I think this might be going to the heart of my unformed fellings that something irks me about this conversation. It seems like people are placing a largish expectation on those they know, but little or no expectation on anyone else. And, the lower the opinion one has of others, the greater the expectations we have to place on those close to us with our private info.

Trust is an integral part of personal relationships, though. You choose to trust certain friends and family with certain levels of information about yourself that you don't willingly share with the general public.

Maybe you give someone your phone number and don't want them sharing it with anyone who wants it. Or you give them directions to your house, or introduce them to your kids by name, and you don't want them sharing that with other people.

Maybe you invite them into your house, and trust them not to post a blueprint of it, with the locations of your valuables along with your schedules. Maybe you trust them to use your bathroom without taking pictures of your medicine cabinet and spreading that information around to drug companies, potential employers, and random strangers; or maybe you just trust them not to disseminate pictures illustrating how long it's been since you actually got behind your toilet to scrub it. Maybe you walk around in your bathrobe or your underwear or naked around them, and trust them not to take pictures.

Maybe you leave them alone in your house while you run out for a while, and trust them not to go through your dressers, or not to invite the police in to look for drugs, or not to copy your tax returns and bank statements or something like that.

Maybe you just tell them about things that you don't want shared with the general public, about physical or mental illnesses, drug use, marital problems, or other personal issues that you don't want them to share with everyone.

Seems to me that in a decent society we'd expect everyone to behave somewhat decently and act accordingly, and then vilify those few loons who act out of step, rather than those who unwittingly enabled the loons by expecting ordinary standards of decency to apply. I know that's not the reality, and that teh t00bz have changed the playing board, but I don't really want to give into complete anthropo-paranoia either.

See, and that's just weird that so many people seem to assume paranoia on the part of people who choose more privacy than they personally do.

There are any number of reasons--some logical, some emotional--that people choose to maintain a greater standard of privacy than you personally do; and it's not your place to speculate or make assumptions about those motivations. I've already mentioned a number of reasons people might want to maintain a fairly high level of privacy, so I won't repeat them.

But the thing is that nobody is obligated to tell you why they don't want their information shared. Maybe the reason they don't want their name or location made public is something that'd entail a level of personal disclosure that you don't merit to them. Maybe they have a violent ex who is stalking them, and they don't feel like discussing it, or they don't know or trust you well enough to; or maybe they witnessed a mob hit and are in witness protection, and they can't tell anyone.

In fact, maybe that's a good assumption if you have a problem with it. Assume that everyone you know who is more guarded about their privacy is a protected witness, so not only can't they justify their requests to you, but any privacy breaches can get them murdered.

Now excuse me while I start a thread grumbling about how we didn't bother to lock our doors in my day.

There have always been criminals and con artists. You just hear about them in more detail now. There were no good old days.

But back in those good old days, gossiping and nosiness and oversharing were considered rude, and people would avoid those people who were known for it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I was watching some coverage of the Giffords shooting, and the newsies were at a table doing commentary with what appeared to be a vigil behind them. At least 4 people walked past that table, saw the cameras, and either waved, or walked back and forth in front of it while on the phone, probably all "I am on TV do you see me?"

This jives with my experiences with media filming. I have no problem staying off camera because there are always plenty of people trying to get in front of it and get filmed.

Your example of media never set right with me for these reasons.

Why not? Of course there are people who want to be on TV for some reason. There are also those who don't.

But there's a huge difference between jumping in front of a camera and saying "HI MOM" and willingly giving your personal information to the media. Try stopping all of the people waving and asking them for their name, address, phone number, age, employment, income, height, weight, sexual history, medical history, nude pix, etc., and watch them peel off, as you hit each of their levels of comfortable disclosure.

Now try putting those cameras in a strip club, a doctor's office, dressing room, an IRS audit, or in their homes, and see how many of them clam up and avoid you.

And that's exactly what I mean.

Of course there are people who seek out some level of publicity when they're out in public, fairly anonymous, and dressed for public consumption. And people who act like the media by sharing everything they know about everyone else should have no problem finding fairly anonymous friends who will happily say Word to you and to your mother while they're out in a public place.

If you act like a reality show camera crew, though, people will treat you like one. There are a fair number of people who will avoid you even in fairly public places. And among those who wouldn't, most would behave very differently with a camera crew in their living room than they would with a trusted friend or family member. They're far less comfortable and trusting, and far more guarded than they would be with someone they trusted to respect their wishes and keep confidences confident.

[LadyShea]

Sorry I was unclear and hurried through that. The example fragment posted earlier in the thread of "the media puts your picture up without asking permission" as being somehow analogous to your friend posting your picture on Facebook without permission, didn't sit right with me because I have never found it a problem to remain off camera if I didn't want to be on TV, and plenty of people go out of their way to get on camera, knowing it may be publicly aired, so seems they implied permission to me.

My expectation is that photos taken of me by friends or family (which I allow) are for private consumption, not public display and distribution. No such expectation exists for the media. I never really felt the comparison of the two was pertinent.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sorry I was unclear and hurried through that. The example fragment posted earlier in the thread of "the media puts your picture up without asking permission" as being somehow analogous to your friend posting your picture on Facebook without permission didn't sit right with me because I have never found it a problem to remain off camera if I didn't want to be on TV, and plenty of people go out of their way to get on camera, knowing it may be publically aired, so seems they implied permission to me.

What about the usually anonymized but still intrusive pictures of overweight people just out minding their business they use to accompany stories about the 'obesity epidemic'? Or reasonably unidentifiable pictures of women wearing skimpy clothes they use to illustrate stories about sex workers? In those cases, though, the media is a little more discreet at least about not including their faces so they supposedly can't be personally identified.

OR OR. When I was maybe 15 or 16, I think, a news crew filmed and broadcast video of me to illustrate some story about the punks or the juvenile delinquents or something like that. It was just a really short little snippet of me looking over at the camera and giving it the stinkeye. Which I did because I was pissed off that some asshole was filming me. And they stopped it before the point where I made it obvious that I was trying to avoid them, so really, that little snippet of me sneering at them was taken out of context to imply I guess that I was perpetually angry and disaffected, and not just specifically pissed off that some goddamned news camera came around the corner and started filming me.

I did look badass, so I thought it was p. funny when people recognized me and my friends called to congratulate me on how menacing I looked and stuff, but my mom was pretty upset about it as I recall. And just hypothetically, had I been, say, standing on my front porch in my jammies scratching my crotch rather than dressed in my cool clothes, smoking and curling my lip menacingly, it would have been much less OK. AND I trusted my friends not to take pictures of me sleeping or looking otherwise dorky like that.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by lisarea

What about the usually anonymized but still intrusive pictures of overweight people just out minding their business they use to accompany stories about the 'obesity epidemic'? Or reasonably unidentifiable pictures of women wearing skimpy clothes they use to illustrate stories about sex workers? In those cases, though, the media is a little more discreet at least about not including their faces so they supposedly can't be personally identified.

Right. I have a lot of mixed feelings, frankly.

Even though there is no expectation of privacy in public, and I think photography in public is Constitutionally protected, and I strongly support freedom of the press, there should be- and maybe there is- remedy for private citizens if distress or harm comes from use of their image.

As you point out many media outlets do not include the face in such images, whether that is from considerateness, or ass-covering in case of potential lawsuits, I don't know. I know that hidden camera and reality shows do often require specific permission, because I couldn't believe some people on Taxicab Confessions actually gave it (they showed them doing so). So news cameras is not necessarily all media.

OR OR. When I was maybe 15 or 16, I think, a news crew filmed and broadcast video of me to illustrate some story about the punks or the juvenile delinquents or something like that. It was just a really short little snippet of me looking over at the camera and giving it the stinkeye. Which I did because I was pissed off that some asshole was filming me. And they stopped it before the point where I made it obvious that I was trying to avoid them, so really, that little snippet of me sneering at them was taken out of context to imply I guess that I was perpetually angry and disaffected, and not just specifically pissed off that some goddamned news camera came around the corner and started filming me.

I did look badass, so I thought it was p. funny when people recognized me and my friends called to congratulate me on how menacing I looked and stuff, but my mom was pretty upset about it as I recall. And just hypothetically, had I been, say, standing on my front porch in my jammies scratching my crotch rather than dressed in my cool clothes, smoking and curling my lip menacingly, it would have been much less OK. AND I trusted my friends not to take pictures of me sleeping or looking otherwise dorky like that.

Again, this comes down, for me, to a conflict of my personal values. I have found it reasonably easy to stay away from media cameras, though I have been in the vicinity during newsworthy events and stuff, so it's not personal for me. Also, my being in the vicinity of news cameras is a far rarer event than my allowing a friend or family member to have or take my picture.


Anyway I just don't feel my expectations of my friends and family is in any way related to my expectations of the media. I do expect considerateness and courtesy from those who claim to love me.

[lisarea]

Just to be clear, I do not think it is or should be illegal for individuals to overshare information about other people. It's a sort of dick move that has and should have social consequences.

And the media thing is a limited purpose analogy. All I'm saying in that regard is that if you personally hold yourself only to the standards that the media holds itself to, take a close look at how people behave with the media, and expect people to begin treating you the same way, including not inviting you into their homes and being far more guarded with you in the same ways they would be if you were the local news crew.

It's easy to avoid the media because the media is easy to identify, and your expectations are clear. It's less easy with individuals because you normally wouldn't expect them to broadcast every interaction you have with them. If they do, though, you are absolutely likely to treat them the same way that you might treat a television crew, including avoiding them, being guarded about what you say, and not inviting them into your home except possibly under controlled circumstances, in the same ways you would if they were a TV crew. And it is more invasive when a friend or family member chooses to share all of your interactions with them, because it's not expected the way it is with the media.

Once people know to expect that behavior from you, though, they will start treating you the way they already treat the media. And yeah, sometimes that means that a good sized subset of people will jockey for your attention the way they do with news cameras. It also means that most people aren't going to welcome you dropping by their house without sufficient notice, or at all; and that almost nobody is going to be comfortable talking to you about anything they consider private.

[fragment]

Originally Posted by lisarea

Trust is an integral part of personal relationships, though.

Of course. I'm not saying there should be no differences in our level of expectations between friends and complete strangers. Just that it's a shame when the expectations of the latter are so low that it starts to impact on our expectations of the former.

See, and that's just weird that so many people seem to assume paranoia on the part of people who choose more privacy than they personally do.

I really don't think anything I wrote looks like an accusation of paranoia. And y'know what? I'm actually fairly private myself, and I'm really good with other people's private info. I'm not saying y'all should be open and carefree like me, because I'm actually not like that. I'm musing on ideas here, in a fairly rambling way, because it interests me to do so. So I don't need a lecture on how and why to keep others' info private, kthx?

There were no good old days.

You apparently missed that I was purely making a joke at my own expense with the whole lock the doors bit.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My expectation is that photos taken of me by friends or family (which I allow) are for private consumption, not public display and distribution. No such expectation exists for the media. I never really felt the comparison of the two was pertinent.

Yebbut the whole point of the comparison was to question the difference in expectations. I'll allow there are and should be differences, although I'm still unsure whether the chasm between the two should be as wide as we tend to treat it.

[LadyShea]

Yebbut the whole point of the comparison was to question the difference in expectations. I'll allow there are and should be differences, although I'm still unsure whether the chasm between the two should be as wide as we tend to treat it.

I have relationships with people based on mutual respect and trust, or professional discretion in the context of doctors and accountants and stuff, and my expectations are based on the nature and agreed to boundaries of, or the legal requirements involved in those relationships.

I have no relationship with the news media or strangers I encounter out in the world, so can only base my expectations of them on vague societal mores and/or specific laws.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by fragment

I really don't think anything I wrote looks like an accusation of paranoia. And y'know what? I'm actually fairly private myself, and I'm really good with other people's private info. I'm not saying y'all should be open and carefree like me, because I'm actually not like that. I'm musing on ideas here, in a fairly rambling way, because it interests me to do so. So I don't need a lecture on how and why to keep others' info private, kthx?

I didn't mean you specifically. In fact, I'm going to say that a good 70% of the time I'm using the second person, I'm using it as the generic. You mentioned paranoia, I assume because it is something that a lot of people toss around as speculation for other people's motivations, and that is something that I wanted to address as a general topic.

This sounds more asshole than I actually mean it, but for the most part, I'm really not that interested in specific people and their motivations unless I know them well and their behaviors affect me directly. I am aware of this impression, but I find it hard to keep the discipline to write in the third person.

I do find it really annoying and kind of stupid when someone assumes motivations or attitudes on my part, though, so I understand why that bugged you. But for what it's worth, I really only meant to address the attitude you were referring to. Rest assured, Sir, that you are little more than a conduit or a convenient segue to topics that I may have some genuine interest in, you see. Ha ha!

The only thing I think I disagree with you on is that I don't think it's possible or even desirable to trust the general public with the same type of information you trust your close friends with. Human social networks are built on things like trust and disclosure, and that's the way it should be. However, when those social networks are translated to the internet, they are much more prone to unintentional or at least non-malicious disclosure. It is far more trivial to accidentally disclose information if you post it to Facebook.

It's not that your expectations are any lower than they were in the past. It's just that the potential for misuse and for very broad dissemination is much greater now.

If, just twenty years ago, you passed around pictures of your friends and family to people they didn't know or necessarily trust, no big deal. Most people wouldn't even remember it or care. If you do the same thing now, on Facebook, though, that information goes out, in permanent form, to an ever-increasing circle of acquaintances, and now into a huge, unprecedentedly robust facial recognition database, where it can be used now and forever to personally identify people based on appearance. So if at some point, they rob a bank, your friend might be identified and caught based in part on your Facebook tags. Or, to remove any potential moral element, maybe Homeland Security will use it to identify them after they show up at a protest or a Food not Bombs meeting or something.

Yebbut the whole point of the comparison was to question the difference in expectations. I'll allow there are and should be differences, although I'm still unsure whether the chasm between the two should be as wide as we tend to treat it.

I can't think of any way that I'd want to narrow it.

I want investigative journalists to be rude and nosy and gossipy and to report offensive or disparaging information they have, within certain ethical standards the journalism profession has adopted. I want law enforcement and prosecutors to be able to use legally obtained information in their investigations and their trials. But I also want to be able to come home after a long day of serial killing and stock manipulation and tell Matlock all about it without him liveblogging the whole conversation.

So I dunno. Which end do you want to narrow, and how?

[Shelli]

c&p'd from a message on Facebook:

FACEBOOK FYI: ALERT*As of today, NEW PRIVACY setting called "Instant Personalization" that shares data with non-Facebook websites and it is automatically set to "Enable." Go to Account>Privacy Settings>Applications and Websites>Instant Personalization>at bottom of page Edit Settings, and un-check "Enable". BTW if your ...friends don't do this, they will be sharing information about you. PLEASE COPY & REPOST

[mickthinks]

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by Shelli

c&p'd from a message on Facebook:

LOL That's "As of today" as in "as of last April" ...

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

[Shelli]

How to Suck at Facebook - The Oatmeal

[Shelli]

Okay, I concede... to a point.

I got a trojan for the first time in over a year (easy) and the only thing I'd done different was give permissions for game apps on FB.

I've since cleaned up my puter very well and deleted the FB apps I had.

[Shelli]

oh...

but, thankfully, my anti-virus software, Viper, had guaranteed it.

[viscousmemories]

...and back again.

NEW YORK – Facebook users who check in to a store or click the "like" button for a brand may soon find those actions retransmitted on their friends' pages as a "Sponsored Story" paid for by advertisers.

Currently there is no way for users to decline this feature.

Facebook to let advertisers republish user posts - Yahoo! News

[Demimonde]

Fuck, I don't want my couponing to spam my friends.

Oh well, other ways to get coupons, but this will hurt advertisers rather than help when folks like me stop liking their products.

[Ymir's blood]

What exactly does, "check in to a store" mean?

[Demimonde]

I assume it has to do with the new location feature, where the iPhone app uses your location and advertises it to your friends.

Ergo:

Demimonde is at Starbucks right now.

I find it creepy and a great way to get your house robbed.

[viscousmemories]

I removed all my hobbies, interests, likes, etc. the other day. I figure as long as I'm gonna have a Facebook to keep in touch with my family and distant friends I will at least minimize the amount of personal data they have on me.