Wising Up to Facebook

[SecularMotion]

WHAT’S the difference, I asked a tech-writer friend, between the billionaire media mogul Mark Zuckerberg and the billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch?

When Rupert invades your privacy, my friend e-mailed back, it’s against the law. When Mark does, it’s the future.

There is truth in that riposte: we deplore the violations exposed in the phone-hacking scandal at Murdoch’s British tabloids, while we surrender our privacy on a far grander scale to Facebook and call it “community.” Our love of Facebook has been a submissive love.

But now, not so much. In recent weeks it seems the world has begun to turn a jaundiced eye on this global megaplatform. While that may not please Facebook’s executives, it is a good thing for the rest of us — and maybe for the future of social media, too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/opinion/wising-up-to-facebook.html?hp

[Atman]

1. We all signed permission to Zuckerberg when we signed up to Facebook.

I never signed over shit to Murdoch. Murdoch was illegally hacking into people PRIVATE accounts.

Epic fail.

.

[ZombieHorde]

2. That is a really good point, in my opinion. nt

[fujiyama]

8. That's all there is to this

The comparison Keller makes is absolutely absurd.

Facebook's "privacy policy" or lack thereof is known to most people. The photos, the status messages, the wall posts, everything is their's. I've even heard of attractive people's photos used for advertising without their permission. Shady? Of course. Wrong? Definitely...

But it's a stretch comparing it to someone actually bugging your phone.

[KurtNYC]

9. And people get to choose what they put up on faceBook but Murdoch

hacked into phones to get the most private messages during the most stressful moments of their life and turn them into tabloid fodder.

As for permission to Zuck true but they keep changing their privacy policy and now will keep all your data forever, even after to you close your FB account. If FaceBook wanted to revoke all privacy settings and make every profile and post public they could do it.

[onehandle]

3. Facebook could disappear. Google is the real threat.

Google is embedding it's claws much deeper into the Internet.

Facebook is a lightweight, comparatively.

[Skittles]

4. when Zuckenberg does it, people just eat it up

I can't believe how many people have fallen for his shit

[jeff47]

5. Facebook only has what you voluntarily give it.

The premise in this article is that NOW and a thief are exactly the same thing, because they spend my money. It completely ignores the voluntary nature of the former, and the involuntary nature of the latter.

[Quantess]

6. No, not at all equivalent.

Unrec.

[yurbud]

7. all the users of facebook should buy a share or two of their stock then convert it to a co-op.

to a coop.