Sorry I haven't posted much recently - with Alaska and whatnot I've been busy. But in any event, there's a new trend (fad?) against Facebook. To be fair, this trend is actually against pretty much all social networking sites, but Facebook is both the biggest and the most used, and so it is getting the most heat. It is the McDonald's of the social networking site. I'm betting someone will make a movie called "Friend Request Me" on the evils of FB. But unlike Morgan Spurlock's excellent film, that film will be utter crap. What we are seeing is, basically, a revolt not against what FB is doing, but what the internet actually is. The past 15 years have seen an excellent technology go from being an odd sounding idea to an essential tool for, well, anything. From porn to research papers, there is literally nothing the internet hasn't improved.
The main grevience people have with FB is that it distributes your "private" information. I would argue anything on the internet is not private, and that you put it online means you, however implicitly, agreed to sharing it with EVERYBODY. Unless you are on a private network not connected to the Web (and those exist), anything put on a website is public information unless the site provider says so otherwise (like an online banking website). Think of it as writing a book. Once published, the PUBLISHING COMPANY owns the rights, not the author, unless there is an explicit deal otherwise. In this case, the publishing company is the website provider. Whenever I blog, Blogger takes control of the content, and may or may not distribute it.
Another issue is that the internet, actually, costs money. A lot of money. Whatever you pay in internet bills is absolute pennies to what it takes to run the sites you go on. Even if you took everyone's internet bill and added it up, it wouldn't work out. So websites sell "ad space," and companies pay the website for advertising. That money makes up the difference, but the website is still "public." Think of it like the Chase Bank Auditorium in Chicago (10 points of you know why I thought of that). Chase Bank paid a whole lot of money to get that auditorium built. It is possible they paid the whole cost, but equally possible they just paid a large share. Anyone can book the auditorium (if they have the money). It is public space. Chase Bank does not OWN the auditorium. They simply funded it. As it is with most college dormitories, a family or foundation donates and so the building takes that name. There aren't three Shapiro buildings in Brandeis to confuse people - they honor different families.
The point here is Facebook costs a HUGE amount of money to keep running, and it is FREE. So they sell lots and lots of ads. To make those ads more valuable, they have an incredibly intricate system of insuring you are presented with ads they think you will like based on your interests. I don't think these ads work well, nor is the system funnelling ads of interest particularly good (below are some ads I get regularly), but that isn't FB's problem. They get the money no matter what (but they probably get a bonus per click). Advertising on FB is like their being one TV station and buying advertising on that. It's really, really valuable.
So Facebook makes its money from ads, not users. Therefore, Facebook has no real incentive to support users over ads. Of course, a sudden exodus of users might change that, as without users the ads won't be doing anything, and the companies will stop paying for the adspace, and FB will collapse. But that is unlikely. According to this site, %0.000000068 users are attending the "Quit Facebook" event. Now, asides the irony of using FB to announce your boycott of FB (because clearly if leaving FB was a personal choice and not a fashion statement, there would be no need for this type coordination), this is an extraordinarily low number.
Further, Facebook does not obligate you to join, and you are allowed to leave, albeit it is more complicated than it ought to be. And the information put into Facebook is FB property by the contract you accepted to become a user. That was buried in fine print and should have been more clear, but that it wasn't is a problem of many companies, and so its a little unfair to blame FB.
You are using FB's services as they are provided. If you don't like how they do business, leave the site.
There are some who say Facebook is ruining the Web or using it for nefarious purposes. Facebook has greatly revolutionized the Web, and this is definately the future of the Web. If humanity thrives off social contact, and if all human inventions and creations are supposed to increase and enhance social interactions, then Social Networking sites (of which FB pioneered) are absolutely the future of the Web. But since FB is a company it does not provide this idea altruistically. It should, but it won't, and it's silly to expect it to.
Another word on internet privacy: the Web cannot read your mind, and whatever it knows it knows because you decided to tell it. The problem is the Web is new and nobody quite realized this and so everyone in their zeal went overboard and are now mad at internet companies for what is actually their own fault. But the Web is not actually akin to a public forum, but more like a heavily serveillenced mall lobby. Everything you say is recorded, and that record is held by whoever operates the website. That party might be altruistic but is most likely not. Therefore: be careful what you say, because once you say it online, it is permanent.
But as for privacy, given that nobody makes you post anything on the internet, whatever you post is due to your own initiative, and therefore it is perfectly reasonable to subject things to a different standard. If you want to post things online privately, create your own private server. Then it's like your own bedroom or apartment or house. The real issue is that the last 15 years, nobody realized this. People in 3 years will be much more careful because they'll know the risks. But now we need to deal with our own mistakes. I don't think FB is much at fault here at all.
The FB exodus is a moronic assault on an outside enemy when really these people are mad at themselves for sharing so much information. Leaving FB is a good way to ensure you don't share more private information, even if it is a little radical. I'll admit, I'm as guilty as anyone when it comes to sharing too much. My junior year I detagged myself from all the inappropriate pictures of me, and I find it great that FB changed the system so if I detag myself from a pic, no one can retag me EVER. I think FB is a great site and a reasonably responsible one. I'm also sure, as time goes on, we'll figure out how to use the Web more responsibly, or at least be able to say those who did it irresponsibly did so on purpose, instead of innocently. This is what happens with new technologies. The first while people get too excited, then they thoroughly rebel against the sudden wave of change, and eventually things even out. Think about this:
After 9/11, people went overboard against terrorism, and yes, extremism in the defense of liberty IS a vice. An then we decided we (or, rather, "they," because obviously we had NEVER done anything so crazy!) went too far, and pulled back far behind where we began. But now things are beginning to even out. On April 30th, people went about their daily lives, and on May 1st a street vendor reported an idling car in Times Square. We can be vigilant without being crazy. Similarly, soon enough we'll figure out how to use to internet both responsibly and to the greatest of its potential (because you are not a responsible internet user if you refuse to use the internet).
I almost forgot!
James Thomas must be disbarred, or made to eat Colorado's disgusting meat, which I'm sure is infected with E. coli and made with a heaping serving of cow manure.
Edit:
In response to what Justin posted, here is what my basic profile looks like on that site (you can pay for a complete profile, which would tell you many things from credit score to estimated wealth):
Most of that stuff, besides being innocent and non-threatening information, is wrong.