[philwelch]

Obviously if you want to follow your friends' activity and exchange messages with them over Facebook, you have to follow your friends' activity and exchange messages with them over Facebook. I'm not sure what the objection is here.

[pyre]

The point is that Facebook is based on trying to convince users to hand over as much private information as possible without making it seem like a bad thing (or even alerting them to the fact that everything they are doing is being recorded for the financial gain Facebook).

A lot of the 'lowest common denominator' people probably just see Facebook as a tool (or 'the internet'). They don't normally think about whether or not the hammer they are using is recording statistics on them from behind a two-way mirror, so why would they think the same thing of Facebook.

If a geek suggests that his parents should get an Apple computer because "It's 'just works' for my mom" it's not the same thing as Facebook because an Apple computer isn't monetized on the idea that Apple will coerce as much personal information out of your mom as is possible while trying to leave her as clueless as possible to the implications of doing so.

[meric]

You don't want companies that you're a customer of to know your private information, that's fine, don't join them.

Personally I'd like it if my bank knows my name when they initiate a call to me.

You might like a bank that acts like this:

"Hello Customer with ID 31059283, your bank account balance is negative five dollars and is overdrawn. The last transaction was an eftpos transaction for $5 at a fast food restaurant. We are unable to tell you any other transactions prior to your account being overdrawn because as a matter of privacy policy we only store the last piece of transaction data. "

Well, I don't. Companies that don't know anything about me don't have my business, they just can't compete, like the Ford Model T.

[pyre]

  > You don't want companies that you're a customer of
  > to know your private information, that's fine, don't join them.

The issue is trying to protect people from themselves. By protecting them from themselves, you are also protecting yourself. I posit that the vast majority of Facebook users fall into the following categories:

1) They joined to use Facebook as a social networking tool, and they are so used to a multitude of things on the internet being free, that they never bothered to question how Facebook is monetized. They personally don't derive any value from their personal, private information, so they don't have any inkling that Facebook could have any interest in that information.

2) They joined Facebook, and they know that Facebook has their private information, but they don't care. Their attitude is: "What's the worst that could happen?" They will only be convinced that something bad could come out of Facebook's data mining of their information when either: 1) something happens to them or 2) something happens to someone else and is high-profile enough for them to believe that it happen (while not being obscure or enough for them to think, "Well, they deserved it.)

3) They don't necessarily want to be on Facebook, but all (or most) of their friends are and they miss out on things like invitations to events, as well as 'inside' discussions if they aren't on Facebook. They attempt to try and limit the private information that they put onto Facebook, and to limit who can see the information they do put on Facebook, but sometimes they get lost in the maze of config options for privacy settings that are hidden here and there (scattered about, rather than gathered into one place).

[philwelch]

These are almost the exact same arguments used against Gmail.