[novum]

You are correct. Facebook was not the first social network and they will not be the last.

I guess I'm more concerned about the precedent they've set, in terms of (mis)handling user data, and how other companies seem to be falling over themselves to add 'social' features. Very few companies begin with a commitment to user privacy.

My fear is that FB has done some kind of irreversible damage, even if only as measured in terms of the attitudes other companies are adopting towards privacy.

[otakucode]

They have made real data privacy an issue they can be competed with on.

Who says the next social network has to be run by a corporation seeking a profit motive? Why can't the next social network by a peer-to-peer network where your personal data stays on your personal machine at home and where you have total control over who has access to what. Don't want to give access to your pictures to the guys who wrote the system? Fine. No problem. Want to delete your profile and know it's offline for good? Easy as pie.

Yes, of course it can't be spun out today as a web service because the web is designed like a piece of shit. We need like some sort of simple home appliance that serves as your node on the network, preloaded with the necessary software that people can just put in their closet and forget about. If you're really ambitious, make that box your business. Make it a simple, secure server that you plug 'apps' into as easy as you do your phone... except the box makes sure you can access those things - and so can the people you authorize - anywhere in the world... without you having to learn DNS, figure out your IP, or any of that jazz.

Of course then the ISPs will cancel the accounts of all your customers for running servers. Oh well, go back to giving all your data to Google and Facebook. I'm sure your ISPs 'no servers' policy actually has nothing to do with guaranteeing a stranglehold on data by hosting and other companies.

[Amadou]

Why can't the next social network by a peer-to-peer network where your personal data stays on your personal machine at home and where you have total control over who has access to what.

Eben Moglen's FreedomBox project has been working on a soup-to-nuts software stack for that sort of thing for a couple of years now. They can use more talent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedombox

[kintamanimatt]

I see your point, but I disagree. There will always be those that just don't give a shit, but I get the feeling that people generally are better educated about privacy and the consequences of freely giving up information online.

People not respecting their own privacy is a marketing problem. Teach people it's cool to respect their privacy and people will be more careful. It used to be cool to smoke too, after all.

[RougeFemme]

"It used to be cool to smoke too, after all." True, but I don't think marketing made it "uncool", at least not initially. I think that started with individuals, families, friends, health-oriented groups. . .the marketers were among the last to the table. I think the same is true of individual privacy.

[pessimizer]

>Teach people it's cool to respect their privacy and people will be more careful.

There is no profit in this, and the government makes facebook privacy-encroaching look trivial, so looking to them to regulate it is a non-starter.

[kintamanimatt]

I disagree that there's no profit potential in it a privacy-focused social network, but a lack of profit potential doesn't mean a social movement is doomed. The anti-smoking campaign wasn't designed to fatten a bottom line, it was designed to create a positive social change, and it worked.

[pessimizer]

I think anti-smoking was done to fatten a bottom line. It was largely a money grab by the states, and state/federal/tobacco money continually poured into anti-smoking organizations.

The reason why nobody cares anymore is because the money dried up (lawsuits ended, settlements happened), and now tobacco companies themselves are using the laws to keep smaller/foreign competitors and safer alternatives (such as Swedish snus) off the market.

Now that there's no money to be had, anti-smoking initiatives are going nowhere.

edit: luckily, this money grab contributed to improving the health of the public - but it was still a money grab.

[kintamanimatt]

You certainly live up to your screenname!

[pessimizer]

:)

[Amadou]

It isn't that there is no profit in it. There is profit - but it is craigslist level of profit, not google level profit.

[webvictim]

I think that Facebook has a social duty to set the bar in terms of what is acceptable to do with this wealth of user data. Never before has there been one place that has so much detailed information about so many people - with great power comes great responsibility. The rules are still being refined. Things get tried - some work, some don't - then from this, lessons are learnt.

[novum]

Yes. However, I believe Facebook has a history that shows it repeatedly failing to be trustworthy enough to make those decisions.

[brymaster]

> I believe Facebook has a history that shows it repeatedly failing to be trustworthy

You can say that again. Here's a great list from over the years: http://pleasedeletefacebook.com

[webvictim]

I don't think there's a rigid bar to judge them by, though - nobody else has had this much data in one place before. There are best practices and things that one might deem "sensible" or "fair" but they're ultimately still trying to figure out just what to do with all this data.

Put it a different way - do you think anyone who works at Facebook would want people to think the company isn't trustworthy? I'd suggest not as it does nothing but harm the company. The decisions are likely made with the best intentions in mind, but to err is human and I don't think that Facebook have all the answers.

[mark-r]

My fear comes from a different old saying - absolute power corrupts absolutely. I've never trusted Zuckerberg.