Comments on: Facebook: Conform or else

By: BDSMShop

BDSMShop — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:56:38 +0000

I just wanted to say hi, I’m new here and I hope to contribute more in the future [url=http://ww.thebdsmshop.com]:)[/url].

By: Bruce Ediger

Bruce Ediger — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 10:18:41 +0000

Why are you surprised by Scoble’s attitude towards outliers?
I mean, he *was* a mouthpiece for Microsoft, a Giant Immoral Corporation, after all. Giant Immoral Corporation attitudes towards “outliers” must have rubbed off on him.
As Abe Lincoln once said, “If you lie down with pigs, you won’t get up in the morning smelling like a rose.”

By: beri

beri — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:04:56 +0000

This is a very interesting discussion on public/private. Altho Facebook is “private,” in the modern technological world, the line between public and private is very different from what it was in say, the 18th century. And Davod Brodbeck makes an interesting point about Linked In, where that site now specifically invites employers to see who a job candidate is linked to on their site. One cannot avoid the computer world these days, unless one is literally a hermit, so the old paradigm no longer works. I’d like to see a discussion on this complex issue continue here.

By: David Brodbeck

David Brodbeck — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:46:13 +0000

Being locked out of these online communities can have real consequences, too, as being online becomes the norm. Ben Rockwood recently did a post talking about how LinkedIn is increasingly replacing resumes when it comes to getting high tech jobs. Kind of a sobering thought for someone like me who isn’t big on the whole online community thing.

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:02:13 +0000

Andy,
Yes, I’m aware that Facebook is a private entity. Private entities can and do engage in censorship, which is not governed by the constitution. That doesn’t make it right. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to talk about liberty in communities governed by rules other than those created by governments.
I think Facebook would like to be an online version of society, with everyone participating (and being marketed to) For them to achieve that goal, they’re going to have to be more an online version of society. They’ve just discovered that that might include some form of democracy. I bet it will include more over time.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:33:44 +0000

Facebook, in my opinion, is a nightmare, particularly regarding privacy. I have zero faith in management’s ability to execute. Their furious backpedaling most recently, and their previous “show my friends what I bought on-line” feature are my examples. They, to my eyes, seem almost comically out of touch. The fact that the propeller-heads can deploy a neural network app to smoke out non-conformists does zero to assuage my concern. Management, it seems, has given up — they now are making crucial decisions based on some sort of user plebiscite. Is there some fancy german word for when you cringe and laugh at the same time? If so, that’s what Facebook induces.

By: Andy Steingruebl

Andy Steingruebl — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:24:44 +0000

You do realize they are a commercial enterprise and not a government provided facility right? People can play by their rules, go with some pseudo-democracy, or simply choose not to use the service.
Phrases like “censor on our social interaction and our willingness to explore and excel” are a bit odd when we’re talking about a private enterprise that people can freely choose to associate with or not. Right?
I understand people are really invested in their facebook persona, but isn’t this talk about liberty taking it a bit far?