I did read it and I was making (poorly) a different point: the problem here is that you see the solution as technical ("Facebook should have better privacy controls") whereas I see the solution as personal ("Do not use Facebook"). I do not believe that it will be feasible for Facebook to both add functionality over time and preserve privacy and so the only solution is not to use Facebook at all.
"There are a lot of people who are essentially forced to be on Facebook due to social obligations."
While I don't agree with John in this case (which is unusual), nobody is forced to be on Facebook. You have the option to choose between privacy and social pressure. Many of us have chosen to not create an account and haven't suffered in the least because of it.
All the examples in this thread of reasons you're "forced" to be on the site amount to missing parties and not seeing pictures -- and it's a really vapid argument. It might suck to not see those pictures, but there's nobody forcing you to do so. It's still entirely up to you.
To clarify, I am not victim blaming. This argument is addressing the claim that a Facebook account is a requirement of youth. It is not. Choosing privacy over pleasure might be an unattractive option for some but it's an option all the same.
> But social events are not mandatory was what I was after.
Again, it depends on what quality of life you can live with, and how you're able to achieve that quality of life. Most people would be in serious emotional pain if forced to live as hermits, which is what happens to you after you alienate enough of your friends. Depending on your circumstances, Facebook (and the leaving of it) could play a large role in that.
If somebody is really to that level of social dependency then it's a choice between being a depressed hermit and having privacy. It's still a choice. Just because one option is more obvious for some people doesn't mean the choice disappears.
> You have the option to choose between privacy and social pressure.
Well, that depends on the nature of the pressure, now doesn't it? Most people can't go through life without their support network, and by 'can't' I mean can not. If being part of your network means friending them on Facebook to avoid alienating them, then that's what people have to do, isn't it?
Facebook isn't a human right or requirement. "Need" is too strong a word, you need food, water, oxygen, sleep... you "want" Facebook.
Facebook offers a service, use it or don't. It has settings, set them and if it still doesn't work for you then don't use it. Noone is "forced" to use Facebook, "forced to..." is not equivalent to "it would be really nice to...".
It all depends on what the "Or else" is, doesn't it? If it is just parties, then that's one thing. If it's being ostracized from your peers and family, that's a steep price. People have done terrible things to avoid ostracism like that.
Let's recommend people don't use a site which does not recognise the concept of privacy, expands the realm of the public versus the private at every opportunity, and spams their friends about their activities without their permission. People (not just LGBT people) should avoid FB entirely unless they want to be exposed to embarrassing situations like this, as FB continually tries to erode their privacy.
Using a public site like Twitter or Blogger is far healthier, as then it is clear that all content is public all the time.
One thing's for sure: it will be a lot more "feasible" if Facebook actually tries. Right now, they are manifestly not trying, or rather, trying to do the opposite.
I believe that throwing in the towel is appropriate because in the early 1990s I was deeply involved in research into the mathematical foundations of computer security (that's what my doctorate is in) and there was a paper written by a guy called Jeremy Jacob(1) that proved that security and functionality are at odds with each other. Thus my basis for my belief that as Facebook adds functionality security will worsen is the underlying theory.
You may not think of security in this context (calling it privacy) but it's all about the same fundamental thing: the control of information flow. In the privacy context it's information flow about people. Jacob's theorem shows that Facebook's privacy will worsen over time as new functionality is added.
> that proved that security and functionality are at odds with each other. Thus my basis for my belief that as Facebook adds functionality security will worsen is the underlying theory
You are making a huge assumption that Facebook is as secure as it can be at its level of functionality. It is easy to see that they could add a tiny bit of functionality that barely hurts security and fix the "add any of your friends to groups" bug that their security and functionality would increase.
I haven't read the article in full yet. So far it appears that the theorem is explicitly about "preventing unauthorized modification of data." Here we're talking about unauthorized read access, not write access. Can you comment on that?
Just because you say it does not make it true. Social considerations are some of the most powerful forces. People considered me "weird" because I wasn't on Facebook for a long time. Eventually I re activated my account, because I was tired of explaining to people why I wasn't on, and because I was missing out on photos and experiences and events that were only shared on Facebook.
I agree that you can sometimes seem cool by seeming aloof to what everyone else is doing, but when it damages your social life, most people aren't going to do it.
