Followed quickly by: "I don't have to; my less-savvy friends would. And I'm in their graph."
At which point, it's in my interest to disclose my own social graph, so that the bank sees that I'm actually connected to responsible people, too. Which means betraying those individuals' presence in my graph. Gah!
That's actually a very good point. I'm not too worried about the stuff I write about on my own Facebook wall -- I know it's set to private, I don't rant, put offensive material, etc. What scares me is what other people write about me on their own walls with God-know-what-kind of privacy setting, the pictures that they tag of me, etc. Even if everything is set "Fort Knox" mode, you're still just one Facebook bug/vulnerability away from it all being revealed.
There was a BlackHat talk this summer called "Faces of Facebook" by Dr. Alessandro Acquisti [1] where he extracts a person's SSN just from an image of their face (by cross referencing Facebook and other things). Scary stuff.
[1] http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~acquisti/face-recognition-study-FA... (PDF)
I mean, I have stuff on my Facebook that I'd rather keep to my group of friends, but nothing on there that absolutely has to remain within that group anymore.
The previous two commenters' point is that this doesn't help you. You have to worry about what other people post about you.
They only have value that is voluntarily put into them. There are certainly young-ish people that for them, Facebook is their social world. On the flip side, there are certainly people who rarely visit it, and deleting their account is no more problematic than abandoning a random forum account.
Personally, I'm falling into the second bucket as I get older. I like seeing updates for the people around me, but if I deleted my account I wouldn't miss it.
So what? You only have that much time on earth to spend it socializing with people you don't really care about online.
For people you do care about, you can always meet offline, or call.
Oh, and if they won't talk to you outside FB, take it as a hint you don't mean much to them anyway.
This is an incredibly myopic worldview especially nowadays. I don't know about you, but online is where I do 99% of my socialization outside of the office. Why? Because phone calls are distracting and rude (when IM is right there and won't interrupt everyone), and meeting up in real life is something that requires a sometimes herculean effort of schedule juggling.
Why? If the other person is busy, they don't have to pick it up. Or you send them a text to make sure they are free (it's what I do). For close friends, I already have a pretty good idea when they'll be busy or free.
Despite what they are called on your online "social graph".
We're not talking about stalking/trying to be together every minute, but, by definition friends are people that LIKE to see you and TALK to you.
Then I'm sorry to inform you, you are not doing much socialization at all.
If phone calls from you are taken as "distracting and rude" or if you see phone calls from others as "distracting and rude", then a) they don't like you and b) you are not a social person anyway.
And if a real life meeting "requires a sometimes herculean effort of schedule juggling", maybe you have your priorities wrong.
And you know anything about my socialization how? Where did this backwards (and utterly ludicrous) idea that one can only socialize in person or via voice come from?
>if you see phone calls from others as "distracting and rude", then a) they don't like you
Are you trying to be as offensive and acerbic as humanly possible? Your bad attempt at snark aside, I'd expect a commenter to a site named "Hacker News" to have a more hacker-esque mind set. Having the phone ring is much, much more distracting to someone who is occupied on a mostly mental task such as coding than an instant message or even a SMS. My particular group and I tend to shun the phone unless it's either 1) super important, something that would justify the loss of mental state or 2) downtime on a weekend when we know the other person isn't likely to be occupied or even 3) asked ahead of time so the other person can clear whatever they're doing.
It's a no brainer. There is quite literally no reason to call someone when an equivalent electronic form of communication is less distracting and just as effective. Knowing someone is working and choosing to impose yourself over whatever they are doing for the purposes of small talk is very rude.
>And if a real life meeting "requires a sometimes herculean effort of schedule juggling", maybe you have your priorities wrong.
I'm happy you have all the time in the world to organize as you see fit. I am not so lucky.
Well, duh, from YOU, when you stated: "online is where I do 99% of my socialization outside of the office."
"""Where did this backwards (and utterly ludicrous) idea that one can only socialize in person or via voice come from?"""
I don't know, never heard of that idea. Mine was: if you're doing "99% of your socializing online" there you're not doing much at all --especially if people you could contact think phone calls from you are "distracting and rude".
"""I'd expect a commenter to a site named "Hacker News" to have a more hacker-esque mind set."""
No, I don't go for sheep mentality. Try ESR's blog for a truly hacker-esque mind set.
"""Having the phone ring is much, much more distracting to someone who is occupied on a mostly mental task such as coding than an instant message or even a SMS."""
I'm a programmer myself and have lots of programming friends, from work, for old workplaces, from uni, you name it. No one has a problem answering their phone --as long as you don't call them every other hour.
There are tons more distractions in a day than a friend calling you (meetings, for one) --and you wouldn't call them at work time, anyway. OTOH, if all their/your time is work time, i.e if 9pm you're at work coding, then, they/you're not really socializing anyway, you're just commenting on other people walls --other people you will almost never see in person or interact with.
"""I'm happy you have all the time in the world to organize as you see fit. I am not so lucky."""
I sure don't, but if a meeting in real life took herculean effort, I'd consider my working schedule a failure, and would try to find ways to amend it.
>No one has a problem answering their phone --as long as you don't call them every other hour.
It's not that there is a problem answering their phone, it's that it's much more polite to either carry on your conversation via IM if it doesn't require voice (and I have a hard time thinking up things that do), or at least ping them first before you start burning up their phone.
>...you're just commenting on other people walls
Did you forget about the entire IM framework that facebook holds? Also, wall comments are immediately flashed to the other person if they are online. Carrying on public conversations is a common occurence.
That is, today, only people who are big credit risks would try to avoid a credit check when applying for a loan -- because a credit check is an expected thing.
In the future, linking your facebook account will be an expected thing in applying for a loan. So banks will assume anyone not allowing it is likewise a credit risk and thus ineligible for a loan, except possibly at usurious rates.
My thinking is that the Facebook info will not actually be more useful than things in a traditional credit score, so it will only be used in addition to those things. That leaves people with no payment history, but historically banks have been plenty willing to take a try it and see approach with those people.
If you show up to buy a house with a 50% down payment, which you saved in your interest-bearing money market fund, I bet that payment will more than make up for a lack of credit history.
Followed quickly by the realization that circa 2016, I might not have a lot of banks to choose from.