Facebook Offers Privacy Checkup to All 1.28 Billion Users | Hacker News Reader

Facebook Offers Privacy Checkup to All 1.28 Billion Users

mobile.nytimes.com

42 pointstaylorbuley26 comments

So where is the "do not share with advertisers option"? All these fine grained controls over which friends to share what with is really not what I need...

It is always important to keep in mind that Facebook (et al) does not sell your personal information, the sell access to a generalized profile. Now, that may still make some people uncomfortable, but it is not in Facebook's best interest to identify individual users to advertisers and not only would that be illegal (in violation of their policies) but it is not a sustainable business model. They want you and these advertisers to keep coming back.

> It is always important to keep in mind that Facebook (et al) does not sell your personal information, the sell access to a generalized profile.

I don't know if they reversed this policy, but last I heard, if I "liked" Coke on Facebook, they would use my name and photograph when advertising Coke to my friends.

That's not directly selling data to advertisers, but for me, it's just as objectionable. "Liking" a page and endorsing usage of my name for advertising that page to my friends or publicly are two very different things.

As most things on FB, there's been a slow march about what certain actions mean. In the case of 'likes' it's something on the order of:

"I think this is cool" -> "+ please subscribe me to your updates" -> "+ please tell everyone I know, repeatedly, that I unreservedly endorse this product/company/whatever - while not paying me anything."

You can probably detect my cynicism in the above.

You missed the part where you stop getting most of the updates from the liked company unless they pay Facebook.

Which is a natural function of an increase in the number of pages you like and the number of friends you have, an in crease in the number of pieces of content they produce and your non-increasing attention span. You will see less of content from any one source as a function of time. The source can work around this by producing more interesting content that the algorithm decides you're more likely to want to see or by paying to have their content shown to you.

The fact that people think this is reasonable really worries me.

If you got them all you would be aware of what you had liked but was sending you too much uninteresting stuff and you would unlike them or you could organise them to either 'get everything' or 'highlights only'.

FB's non-optional control and filtering of the feed is to benefit them and give them a monetization option, it isn't a service to you.

I could not actually say this better. +1

EdgeRank is an extortion for businesses.

You can disable that specific behavior at https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=ads&section=social, for what it's worth.

It used to be they could basically pin that to the top of a persons News Feed. They removed that ad unit, now, when you pay for an ad, you just get the social context of who likes that product. Since you are using Facebook, a platform with an explicit goal of connecting the world through sharing, it shouldn't be surprising that what you do on it will be seen by others. This social context will only show to your friends, by the way, since people who don't know me are probably not that interested in the fact that I like Topo Chico.

I never understood this argument of "selling your information" to advertisers. As far as I'm aware they allow advertisers to target demographics. What company that sells advertising does not?

The only ones that don't end up with the lowest common denominator of ads: scams, insurance, loans, and diploma mills, which is as much of a UX loss as a revenue loss.

I think what that means is the advertisers don't know your identity as a target. Facebook shows them filters for whom the advertisers want to serve their ads. If you click on an ad, then probably your identity is shared, not otherwise.

This is based on my limited knowledge of display advertising, so please correct me.

Don't know if this is still the case, but it used to be possible to target one specific individual (yegg wrote http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2010/05/a-fb-ad-targeted... about it), and it was possible to cross reference this with other RTB venues (e.g., adnexus) - so that, while they didn't give out your details - if you were targeting someone specific, you'd actually get to see a significant part of their web traffic (everything that had ads through those RTB venues).

It all boils down to what you mean by "identify" - if you include "complete name, address, age, etc." - then, no, FB doesn't directly identify you. But if you mean "know whenever that same user does anything else anywhere", then - yes, they do let the advertisers identify you.

That one is easy, its called "don't use Facebook"...

Really. Users want all the bells and whistles of a cutting edge social network and want the money to come from Red Cross. The solution is actually not to use it or use it sparingly. Just keep an account to get in touch with friends. Mine doesn't even have a mobile number or my primary email address, or even a photo. No post or edit in last 7 months.

If your friends have your details in their address books and have connected the mobile app to it, then FB has your info already. Just because you can't see it on your profile doesn't mean the data is not on their systems.

I know that. And there's no skipping it unless you are willing to go to the mountains and live off the grid (until the day they come looking for you :-) ), or unfriend everyone.

I just try to share the least amount possible.

I'm glad you do but I suspect most people don't. It takes a mental leap to realise that other people can now (unknowingly) do things that expose your information to parties you're trying to avoid sharing with. Even writing it now I feel like it's obvious but people I speak to really don't understand how things work.

Couldn't agree more. I was off Viber, or WhatsApp for about 3 months. Had closed the accounts after installing and I had moved to TextSecure and Telegram. I was successful in convincing some friends to join Telegram (they were still on Viber/Whatsapp) but I had 0 friends on TextSecure. Finally Telegram friends uninstalled it. As I was missing a lot of messages, fun, and info about common friends I came back to WhatsApp and Viber and that made me sad. I tried to explain what Facebook buying WhatsApp meant, it didn't work. They don't give a damn and I talking about intelligent technocrats who passed from the best tech schools in the country and are in the best s/w jobs. Privacy is a cultural thing.

>That one is easy, its called "don't use Facebook"...

I ended up going for a hybrid approach. People kept bugging me about creating a FB profile. So I did. Its pretty much blank & linked to my gmail...so people can reach out to me if they want but I don't actively participate in a meaningful manner.

It strikes me as odd that this is considered a legitimate offer by some (most?) people. The whole existence of FaceBook is dependent on collecting data from people - why would they offer to check privacy unless it was an attempt to collect more data?

Did anyone else laugh when they read this headline?

My guess is that most people will just close the window and FB can claim to care about privacy (...as much as McD's cares about your cholesterol)

> Do you know who can see what you are posting on Facebook, including your photos, birthday and personal cellphone number?

> Chances are that you don’t.

Wrong guess. Chances are that I perfectly know that I have set everything to public so that I force myself to think about what I post.

Because if I don't friend someone now, it does not mean that I might not friend them in the future just because they're family of my sister's future husband or whatever. Or the famous "friends of friends" share option that basically includes everyone on my continent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com