What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
79 Comments
- NerdyNinja, on 10/10/2007, -2/+52I don't know, this article makes the basic assumption that a standard for social networking sites can be implemented while remaining secure. I'm sorry, but I don't want just anyone to pull my cell number or to easily be able to bot search for my email based off the fact that I have a particular band listed in my music section. I have no reason to want anyone I'm not friends with on Facebook to know anything at all about me.
I understand the desire for a kind of hive-mind social life, where any information about anyone can be pulled up at any time, but I would like to have my privacy protected a little better than that. So, in my mind - unless this social network standard is set up in such a way that it retains all of the security benefits (or improves upon them - wishful thinking in an era of selling information to the highest bidder, perhaps), I want no part of this. I think it's perfectly legitimate to be able to require a Facebook login to use a Facebook feature - it's not like you can use your Barnes and Noble account at a Border's website. It's Facebook's system, and I think they're doing enough releasing public APIs. It's not like you have to pay to use Facebook or anything. - GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+24You had a Myspace account!!!!!!
Burn the heretic! May his screams sound as a warning to all others who would layout a web site with a table. - Ricapar, on 10/15/2007, -3/+22How about no.
That's what has made Facebook as good as it is. You can't have your random moron sign up and go adding craploads of people that easily, with the sole purpose of spamming.
Social networks in the real world are closed. As should be online ones. - mercurysquad, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13"The last time we checked, there was this thing called the internet that had 6 billion users"
Everyone in the world uses the internet?? Where did they author get his demographics from..? - Caleb83, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12There's only 6.5 billion people on this planet. What .5 billion doesn't have internet? No, I did not read the article.
- sanjman79, on 10/10/2007, -0/+86 billions users online? Theres about 7 billion people in the world. I don't think 6/7 is online. Actually its probably something like 1/7.
- disoriented, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7hmmmm ***** that....my friends on facebook can look at my profile and that's good enough for me...do i really want a POTENTIAL EMPLOYER to be able to look at what I do on the weekend by easily accessing incriminating photos? I think not.
- acbeck58, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8hmmm... it's called privacy. Why would you want to share your photos and contact info openly to the world?!
- ScrewedThePooch, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9This is exactly why I chose Facebook and not MySpace when it came out (other than the fact that myspace is a breeding ground for spyware, pedophiles, and retards). If I'm not friends with someone on Facebook, I either don't know them well enough to want them to see my info, or they don't have a Facebook account. The second option can be remedied by creating an account. It's not like there are any restictions, like you have to be in college or something.
- giveer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I don't know if anyone else has bothered to notice, but my family, who DON'T have facebook accounts can see my Facebook pictures just FINE. It's called selecting the "public album" option.
Am I the only one who knows about this? Some people in here are talking as if Facebook is a virtual puckered ass sphincter. - eightyd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Wait, so I should make my personal data free, open, and public? For everyone to see, instead of using a service that has a privacy policy?
No thanks - Theipolicy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+66 billion users? Really? I wish I was in the other .6...
- Philluminati, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I completely agree. I don't want to be "locked in" to facebook, but at the same time I don't want anyone to tag me in that photo with the sheep.
Finding the right balance is important. Perhaps if we could all manage our site on our own website, kind of like how wikipedia's software is distributed and used as a platform on top of web server software. Then we'd have a great deal more freedom. We could run our own or use facebooks or whoevers server as our provider home, and the relationships with other people would be open. - Lagger, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6lets disguise a marketing push for "pulse" as a facebook/myspace rant...
- spydezra, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5My thoughts exactly. I put certain information on Facebook because my profile is listed as "private" and only my friends can see it. Why would I want to list my information on some open network that anybody can access? Couldn't that lead to identity theft, stalking and other sorts of problems?
- edesignweb, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7funny cuz i just deleted my myspace account yesterday. page two of this article has some good links. a couple i've never heard of like pageflakes.com
- OnoTadaki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I don't even see how you can strike a comparison between those two things. You have Apple forcing limitations on songs people legitimately own that should not be applied versus Facebook that does not edit your content whatsoever with DRM-like software, but is inside a closed network where you choose who you want to allow to see your page, etc... Last I checked, that was the entire appeal of closed social networking sites like that. You upload your content and have privacy from people you don't know, but 100% openness with friends you trust. How can you honestly say that Facebook is infringing on your rights to not be able to browse some 10 year old girl you don't even know's profile openly whenever you want?
- womz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Ok article. This is what many of us have been looking for and is the American mentality - one size fit all. It would be nice to have one website to manage all my other stuff; and not just linking to, actually using. I would say facebook is probably even the closest thing to that with all the API's, but now all the widgets and things made are pointless games (ok, how many times have YOU been "bit by a zombie," it gets old). But, with several useful ones you get flickr, lastFM, your blog, etc...etc... everything is still growing, let us see if the "open standard" does meet websites.
- wonboodoo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+36 billion users? I don't think so. Try 1.2 billion: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
- gregcotten, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3One of the great features of facebook is that only FRIENDS can see your personal information - isn't that what we want?
- LANjackal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3This guy seems to have forgotten that Facebook's closed nature and strict privacy rules is one of the features that draws people to it in the first place. Contrary to what he says, not that many people want all their info "out there". Exclusivity is a huge part of the allure of social networking... hence the "social" part of the term. Buried as lame.
- xkrwlng, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3whoever wrote that article is a moron. i would delete my Facebook account, if all my info was public.
if you want a completely "open, public" Facebook, then you may as well e-mail all of your private info to the NSA right now - dragongrrl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4
the premise of this article is, imo, spot-on. walled gardens will not be around forever. whomever invents a way to do social networks without having to be tied to a single platform will be doing the Net a huge favor.
what the author's miss with their second-page listing of "how to roll your own, sorta" is the fact that , for a social network to be successful, it must allow people to participate who have a primitive tech skillset. myspace got a big buy-in, i believe, because it was so damn easy to create your own webpage. then inertia took over as more people hooked into it.
so, yeah, open it up -- but it will fail if it's not fall-off-a-rock easy to get started on it. - tekwiz2k4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3This is stupid. "personal information" means it's "personal" aka "things I don't want everyone in the world to know"
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3it doesn't have to be right to be true as long as you say it on the internet, people will not question it. baaah
- fasda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2why is it that there are so many people out there that think all software and the internet should be free and open and that its nearly criminal to to have to buy software or companies try to shore up their business plan.
- bandergrove, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2One of the main reasons Facebook is superior to Myspace is because only your FRIENDS and people in your small NETWORK can access your personal information. A lot of people (myself included) don't want the entire world, including governments, police, potential employers, stalkers, etc. to be able to just search for my name and find all of my contact information, and track every move I've made online.
- jaywag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The reason why I, and many others I know, use Facebook instead of Myspace is because it's not open-access to everybody.
I like the fact that, in terms of data, only people who I want to see the information will see it. I like the fact that everybody's page is black text on a white page with some blue mixed in instead of seeing a page with every letter of text in the bio being a different color and the person's name spelled out in glitter text that follows my mouse around the screen.
I even find most of the application stuff annoying. I was checking some of my friends profiles today to see what classes we're taking in the fall, not to find out how many ninja points they had. Thank God for Greasemonkey on that one, though. - kidlinux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2An "open" social networking technology has existed for as long as HTML.. it's called "HTML". If you want to make your stuff public, build your own site. Want to add someone as a "friend"? Link to their site with a hyperlink.
- snapdeus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The point of facebook is to have a closed network that you personally control. I don't want my information floating around the net. I want to be able to communicate with my large amounts of my real life friends online through a convenient networking website and I dont want anonymous messing around with my ***** while i'm doing it.
- swat510, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I was talking about the point of Facebook for the user not for the owner of the site, obviously the owner is only interested in money. But how do they get money? By providing some service with a point to the user. That point is to let them socialize with their friends without getting off their lazy asses.
- canandaiguan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't want everyone to be able to see my profile, pictures, etc.
I like the way facebook does it.... "I'll show you mine if you show me yours..." - spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2wait... our personal info free and open to 6 billion people on the web??? im not sure i like that
- JoeDiggsIt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I was drinking while reading the last four words of your post. Now there is Dr. Pepper inside of my laptop, thanks.
- dpvu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No kidding... The world's population is just over 6.6 billion according to the latest figures (July 2007). So if 6 billion people have internet, you're telling me that only 600 million people on Earth don't have internet? WAY more than that don't have access to computers.
- JoeDiggsIt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Welcome to Digg, no I'm sorry we don't have PM, we've only been asking for that since 1969.
- SpikeLee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But personal data is not really comparable to a garden. It's not like we are opening up a gallary but there aren't any doors to enter and see them. This is stuff like interests and such. And it is a network, which means that only people who are included in that network can see all the hoopla.
- shuffle2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1tru dat
- Wyzard, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nobody said anything about Facebook's business model being "nearly criminal". There's nothing wrong with them running their site the way they do.
However, this is a free market, and people can and will switch away from Facebook if something better comes along. There's nothing wrong with that either; they have no obligation to keep using one service if they'd rather use another one instead. And an open, interoperable system, that doesn't lock people into a single website run by a single company, would probably fall in the "something better" category. - Otto, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The restriction is that you have to think that Facebook offers anything of actual value. It does not, for your normal internet-savvy human being.
- JimmyRyan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well I don't think that they should be totally open as in random people able to spam your page all day, but it would be cool if Myspace, facebook, and the many others got together and made them intertwine. Then you have a choice of your service and you have access to it all. Its a bit far fetched right now, I know, but it would improve social networking altogether.
- Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hey, if enough of my non-geek friends are on Facebook (that means pretty much everyone of them), then that says that Facebook is doing something right. I'm having fun with some applications (i blocked zombies,pirates,vampires,etc)and creating local-based community applications, planning my 10th year high-school reunion, etc. Out of 200 graduates 80 are on Facebook, easy to find them because everyone is using their real name... i would've never found those people on Myspace
- ScrewedThePooch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, I said when it came out. You couldn't have private profiles when myspace came out unless you said that you were under 14. MySpace now is an overburdened piece of crap, though, so it's not even worth signing up for it.
- NerdyNinja, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hence my line about hoping for improved security features, instead of opening up the database to more than Facebook people which allows for more access points - something any security conscious programmer avoids. The more entrances you have to guard, the more likely you'll miss something.
Facebook isn't secure, but it's not as bad as you're making it out to be. The privacy settings do help, and while it doesn't fix everything, it's better than nothing - and there is some combination of the security settings that will block out most employers. Also, I just took a peek at the cookies Facebook sets - and yeah, they display your username in the clear, but that's not a big deal. However, I see a couple strings that would appear to be hashes, so I'm not sure what you're talking about for unsecured cookies... Just because they were terrible once upon a time doesn't mean that they should forever be damned, HerrEisenheim. - indorock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yes it is :)
- on9star, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Whoever wrote this article should be slapped in the face[with a]book
- rmxz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Seems Facebook & MySpace today == Geocities of a few years back.
While they're nice for non-computer-users who want to have a web page and presence on the internet; it's no substitute for actually having control over your content (and software) - if for no other reason, so you can run the ads instead of News Corp. - indorock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Disagree. I used to think that way, open myself and private info (including email address) to the world....hello world, look at me!....until I got spam-rammed up up the e-mail ass. No longer will that ever be made public again. But at the same time I do want my good friends to be able to contact me via mail. Facebook allows me to do just that. I have no interest in letting total strangers contact me. If they really want to, they can fill out the contact form on my public website.
Long like private social networks, I say. - Wyzard, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You don't have to, and the article isn't saying you should. It's saying that your friends shouldn't all need to sign up at a single "walled garden" website, such as Facebok, for you to be able to (voluntarily) share non-public content with them.
- danielfe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I blogged about this recently - http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archive/2007/08/02/not-all-facebook-data-is-in-a-walled-garden.aspx The assumption is just totally wrong, Facebook's API's make it, as best, a walled garden with a door and it's totally unfair to put Facebook and MySpace on the same page. Facebook, in fact, opened it's API's in August, 2006 while at the time the biggest complaint was that it was one way in that you could pull Facebook data out, but you could not actually customize your profile the way you could with MySpace. To compare MySpace and Facebook in the same breath is wholly inaccurate as MySpace is *completely* closed (at least for now). Even the applications listed by the author do not have open API's (iLike and Meembo don't have open APIs). I don't think you can find an example of any Web site on the Web with better, more open API's than Facebook. The assumption is that your data is private, unless you so choose to make it public. Maybe someone doesn't want to make their religious or political views known, they should have that choice.
-
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is