[erreon]

I don't really understand how it's creepy as hell. You volunteer information to it and it posts its. If you don't want people knowing when you are sick, broke a bone, or lost a loved one then I would think you don't post it to Facebook. This generation and even more surprisingly some out of generations of the past really want to share everything and this gives them that ability.

[bradleyland]

These conversations are inherently difficult to articulate. "Creepy" is an adjective one uses to describe how something makes them feel. There's probably a more specific term for words like this. That is, the adjective isn't an entirely objective measure.

Think about this conversation for a moment::

Dick: I sure do hate strawberries. They're gross!

Jane: OMG, you are so crazy. Strawberries are delicious!

Dick & Jane: LOL (literally, they have a laugh)

In this conversation, neither Dick nor Jane are upset or confused by the other's feelings about strawberries. There is little ambiguity to the fact that the adjective "gross" applies only to Dick's feelings about strawberries. Neither feels threatened by the other's feelings about strawberries, because neither of them have any significant emotional investment in the fruit, and their relationship won't suffer as a result.

Step back and look at the Facebook Timeline situation. The author finds it creepy. "It", is the act of inviting others in to your life experiences on such an intimate level. "Creepy" is how the author feels when considering doing so on his own Facebook account.

Some people, when they read the conversation about strawberries above will have a visceral reaction about Dick's dislike of strawberries. "How can anyone dislike strawberries," they'll exclaim!? The same thing is happening here with the Facebook Timeline conversation. For some people, the Facbook Timeline is like inviting a complete stranger in to the bathroom with you, and not a bathroom with stalls and dividers. I'm talking one toilet here. Then again, maybe you're in to that kind of thing. I'm not here to judge.

The point is that in any sizable population, you're going to have divergent viewpoints on what is "creepy" and what is not. Creepy is not an objective measurement. It's how you feel about something. What I don't understand is the author's framing of the issue:

"Nobody’s forced to use Facebook, of course, although for many it’s pretty much a mandatory part of the social experience. What worries me is the trend of radical transparency and social context throughout the web software industry, where it’s expected that everyone will share their lives unless they’ve got something to hide. On the surface, for white males like me living in California, there’s a lot to be said for this on an individual level; don’t lie, be up-front, wear your intentions and motivations on your sleeve. But ultimately the decision about what to share has to be the individual’s – if you don’t feel like sharing something, don’t. Radically transparent interfaces are designed in a way that leads to a kind of peer pressure for disclosure: everyone else is sharing information about A, B and C, so why are you being so evasive?"

To paraphrase, "I recognize that I'm not forced to use Facebook, but I'm worried about the impending pressure to share." Taken further, one could say that the author is concerned about the "implications" of this. Implications is code for something else though. It's a rhetorical device used to represent a growing dissonance between the author's feelings on a subject and the perceived consensus.

[fourk]

The issue that I have with it is that it so easily exposes posts from the beginning of time to people I only recently became friends with. When I first signed up for Facebook, it was still in 'college only' mode, and what I posted was with that restriction in mind.

Over the past few years, this has dramatically changed; now I'm friends with coworkers, parents, etc. As my list of friends/target audience changed, the posts I made shifted in nature to stay appropriate to my current list of friends at the time that I posted any piece of content. When Facebook enabled post-specific privacy controls, I made lists and used them religiously for restricting access to content I provided.

However, short of clicking through each and every one of my old posts and changing the access control list or removing the content/untagging myself, how do I prevent the next boss or coworker that I friend on Facebook next week/month/year from easily seeing the dumb shit that I was posting back in 07 when my target audience was other college kids?

What I really wish existed was a privacy setting that allows me to restrict people from viewing content that existed before our Facebook friendship began. If I posted something before I knew you, and before I could account for you being a part of my social stream, it's none of your damn business.

[danmaz74]

Being able to give special restrictions to "past" events (statuses) looks like a very good idea to me.

[joebadmo]

But I think a central assumption about a lot of this sharing, especially on social networks is that it's ephemeral, soon forgotten, lost to the passage of time. Just like the conversations we have offline. That's part of what's creepy.

The other part is the autosharing, which I've discussed in another comment.

Taken separately, I think either part is notably creepy, but put together, they cross waaaaaay over my personal creepiness line.

[brlewis]

The timeline will help you find and delete things you intended to be ephemeral.