[RyanMcGreal]

I don't have a problem with opt-out when you sign up for a web service. For example, on Twitter the default is for your stream to be open to the public but you can opt to lock your account so only approved users can follow you.

That leads to stronger network effects faster, and creates a more usable tool for everyone.

The problem I have with facebook (note: I don't have a facebook account) is that people signed up based on a particular set of terms but the company then changed those terms and switched a default opt-in to a default opt-out after the fact.

[pedalpete]

There is another difference between twitter and facebook.

The twitter opt-out was for one feature and only on that one site.

Facebook doesn't provide a way to completely opt out of this feature.

Note #4 on the list 'Finally, check Facebook’s “Help Center” frequently to see an up-to-date list of applications that need to be individually blocked to maintain your privacy'

Facebook takes the action of automatically adding you to new sites, but not telling you that they have done this. So the onus is on you to continually go back and remove these sites from your feed.

Furthermore, Facebook is continuing to share your information with these sites, all you are turning off is your view of what is being shared.

It's very shady.

[ivenkys]

"that people signed up based on a particular set of terms but the company then changed those terms and switched a default opt-in to a default opt-out after the fact"

Thanks for putting this in such clear terms. I am not on FB but whenever i get asked again - this is what i am going to tell them.

[pasbesoin]

Yes, and this is the same sort of problem many people had with Buzz. Your contact list was private, and then -- wham! -- there it is (or parts of it) for the world to see. (And your profile à la Buzz started aggregating Google-related activity; even if aspects of it were not previously designated "private", hanging it all off of your profile sure made it more accessible.)

If you knew at the start that that would happen, it might have stopped you from giving them -- originally and mostly through Gmail -- your contacts list. (Or using other affected services.) But when you signed up, they were all about "privacy" -- particularly after their previous efforts to reassure people in the face of concerns over automated ad targeting in Gmail. (Which was its own event, but I guess people generally decided that, as long as its purely automated and doesn't affect anything more than ad presentation, they could live with it.)

Hmm... as a thought exercise, what if your Gmail content starts affecting not just ad presentation but your search results. Would you have a bit more concern, then?

What if your employer starts examining employees' "customized" search results (perhaps by hiring a third party that specialized in this) and making inferences?

I assume they can and some may well already log and analyze the ads returned on those searches. Now that ads are starting to "follow people" across searches and sessions -- at least at some sites -- what personal habits might you inadvertently be bringing with you to work, via third parties' tracking of and response to your web use?

[anigbrowl]

Exactly. That might merely seem embarrassing, and one could say 'use incognito browsing' for obviously personal stuff. But what if you're interested in politics and your employer strongly supports a different party? Or you have health worries of your own or for your kids, and an employer doesn't want to see health premiums rise? Such concerns seem abstract until they begin affecting people's livelihoods, by which time it can be hard to undo the ill effects.