Following up on my earlier message regarding Facebook, here's a good analysis of the privacy issue.
Amalyah Keshet ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> nick carr has an important post on facebook and privacy. >> a chunk, but not all that's worth reading, is below. >> >> http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2007/11/dont_tap_on_the.php >> >> "What we've learned from the commercialization of the Web is >> that people are more than happy to exchange their privacy for >> free stuff and greater convenience as long as you allow them >> to maintain the fiction that their activities are not being >> monitored and recorded. As Chris Messina recently said, "To >> date, many people still maintain their illusion of privacy" - >> and that illusion has been an important shield for advertisers >> looking to collect ever more intimate information about us and >> for the many Internet companies that act as their enablers. >> >> "In breaking that illusion, Facebook is taking a big risk. It >> may set off a rebellion among its users, who up until now have >> felt comfortable cavorting behind Facebook's walls. But Facebook >> probably had little choice. Studies show that the members of >> social networks are largely oblivious to banner ads and other >> traditional advertising. If it's ever going to actual make some >> real money, Facebook has to break through the indifference of >> its users - and that means capitalizing on both the rich personal >> data it collects and the "friendships" it cements. It needs to >> send tailored commercial messages along the trusted >> communications pathways that already exist within the site. The >> only way it can do that is to start tapping on its members' >> windows. >> ... >> >> " ... I think what Zuckerberg learned was this: If you're going >> to push the privacy limit, then push it as far as you can. If >> users get upset, take a tiny step backwards and point to that >> tiny step as evidence that you've "listened to the community." >> If you go through this three-steps-forward-one-step-back routine >> enough times, you'll be able to get everything you want while >> your users will be able to maintain the illusion that they're in >> control. >> >> "Privacy is lost not in one great flood but rather through >> steady erosion. Eventually, the Peeping Tom taps on your window >> and waves, and you don't recoil in horror and embarrassment. >> You wave back."
