[kmavm]

> less intentional.

I'd refer you to Hanlon's Razor. You might also want to introspect as to why the singular social privacy fiasco whose decision-making you've seen internally strikes you as less evil than the privacy fiascos you've witnessed as an outsider.

Also, life is long, and the valley is small. We may work together someday. Let's try to presume good faith when possible, eh?

[btilly]

On intentionality, I find myself in agreement with a lot of what http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_sa... has to say. Facebook acquired a lot of data when everything was promised to be private, then changed the rules on people. Repeatedly. And Zuckerberg has been privately cavalier about his responsibility to respect privacy from the start, as is evidenced by http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims....

This does not mean to say that most, or even very many, people working at Facebook are as morally challenged as Zuckerberg seems to me to be. But the fact that I think that some of Facebook's controversial decisions come from Zuckerberg, and that I don't think Zuckerberg is acting in good faith, is why I view various incidents involving Facebook as being more evil.

As for the valley being small, it is but I don't live there. And it seems unlikely that I will ever live there. Furthermore my feelings about any particular company don't generally extend to the rank and file working there. Similarly I don't let my hatred of Microsoft's policies get in the way of my having friendships with people who work at, or used to work at, Microsoft.

[kmavm]

Sorry for any perceived "valley-centrism"; feel free to substitute "small industry" for "small valley."

What does Zuck's level of personal awesome have to do with anything? This strikes me as a major confusion about the business/consumer relationship. I know Zuck, and I happen to think he's a fine guy, but you don't, and you shouldn't have to.

I don't trust Google because Eric Schmidt is spiritually advanced, or because an engineer who now works at Facebook coined a tongue-in-cheek "Don't be evil" motto 12 years and 25,000 employees ago; I trust it because its search business' incentives are aligned with mine as a searcher.

So, what are Facebook's incentives? Facebook wants you to use its service to communicate with friends, so that it can show you targeted display ads. In the long run, using the service requires you to feel comfortable with who has access to your data, so Facebook's business has to get privacy and openness approximately right. Like everything about a customer-facing service, that turns out to be harder than it looks, at least while providing a stream of new features, but get it right we must for the business' health. But you're about to find out all about that...

[btilly]

What does Zuck's level of personal awesome have to do with anything? This strikes me as a major confusion about the business/consumer relationship.

The answer is, "a lot". And there is no confusion.

I believe that Facebook's behavior stems from attitudes I dislike at the top. Believing this, I believe that they will continue to push the boundary. You're right that they need to find the right balance between openness and privacy. However the corporate DNA looks to me like they consistently err on the side of openness for profit.

Worse yet, the corporate belief seems to be that while people will moan, they will accept continued encroachment on privacy. As someone who has things that I really need to keep private, I don't trust that and don't want my information there.

As for Google's social ventures, I have nothing to do with that and know little about it. If Google starts doing the sorts of things that I see Facebook doing, then I'll readjust my thinking about Google. Companies do change. In the meantime I have my preferences.