 |
|
 |
 |
Strike & Co.
Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 354
|
|
[ED: This thread was split from here]
------------------------------------
Oh--MySpace has been useful for band news, to me; especially for some of the larger bands that I've friended, like TBM, Project 86, and Plumb, and some other random smaller ones.
| gRegor wrote: |
| I'm pretty surprised about not having Facebook accounts, just because they're so ubiquitous. |
( Heh, hope you don't mind me ranting about this ;)
I thought I've done it before, here, but if not..... )
Meh.
Facebook's TOS are too constrictive (What? I have to give you truthful info? Goodbye!) and I've already got a MySpace account, so...
I never saw the point of the "social web" anyway, partly because I'm not a social person.
The web is for disseminating info, not blabbing about daily stuff. Also, it's the "push" v "pull" issue: If I want people to know stuff, I'll tell them--email is good for this. (Or IMs/texts, for people who can't get a real email account.) I'm bloody well not going to dump stuff onto a server I have no control over...
Besides, like I said, posting "private"-but-limited-access stuff just doesn't make sense to me. If you don't wanna play the infowar game, stay off the web; don't try to hide behind a layer of "I have to admit to your existence before you can read my stuff". Especially since most social things have people-finding tools, so if you have an account then anyone can find said account.
Public diarys can have some really intriguing stuff in 'em, but I'm way too paranoid to have one of my own. There's one piece I'm been thinking of posting just because it seems the kind of thing that would be dangerous only if read by [people who know me]... but so far I've been lazy about writing it, so that's all good. ;)
PS: MySpace and FB both, as far as I can tell, absolutely FAIL at telling me who is reading my stuff.
MySpace at least gives a count of reads by today/this week/ever, which is a teeny bit of tracking info, but mine has gone up to 30-40 per day and I have no clue who any of them are.
So, I should just get my own website, where I'd get more exposure anyway ;)
_________________
"Like a photo of Berlin, December 1944" - BSS, "Heart Still Beats"
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
gRegor
Joined: 11 Sep 2004
Posts: 153
Location: Indianapolis, IN |
|
I don't really mind either way if you get a facebook (or other social site), so these aren't really arguments, just for discussion:
What truthful information do you not want to give Facebook?
"Blabbing about daily stuff" is disseminating information. Sure, maybe it's not information you care about (and there's a lot of such "fluff" out there), but it might be to some people. There is the social aspect too, which as you said, you're not really a social person.
As far as controlling content, well, I've never really used Facebook for posting photos - just a couple profile photos. I use Flickr for photos, and currently I don't even take photos that often (crappy, aging digital camera currently  Occasional status updates, or tweets that I cross-post, and facebook imports posts from my website, too. I've never really been concerned with it being on facebook's servers, so I guess I don't understand the concern there. Perhaps if it was my only outlet for blog posts, I could understand. As it stands though, I use an open-source CMS on my website, so I have backups of all my data - I don't care if facebook goes under tomorrow, I'm safe.
I'm not really worried about them re-purposing / reusing my content either. It seems quite unlikely that they ever would, but if they did I still have proof of original creation (my site).
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strike & Co.
Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 354
|
|
(Can someone move these posts to a different topic/board? I kinda hate to clutter up the EG section with this... though as dead as things are these days it may not matter much.)
| gRegor wrote: |
| What truthful information do you not want to give Facebook? |
Any "personal identification" stuff--name, age, gender, etc.
Now, if that info was just for account-keeping purposes I could understand, but they don't give the option for having different public-display-values.
| Quote: |
| "Blabbing about daily stuff" is disseminating information. Sure, maybe it's not information you care about (and there's a lot of such "fluff" out there), but it might be to some people. There is the social aspect too, which as you said, you're not really a social person. |
Yeah; the "social web" just confuses me. Some people just don't seem to understand the concept of privacy. >_>
(I guess I need a better word or definition for 'information', eh?)
Nice for you using Facebook as a re-posting site; I think that functionality makes a lot of sense.
I'm not really concerned about content control, it's just something to be paranoid about (and I still think the 'net needs more paranoia than "real life", so I mention it).
_________________
"Like a photo of Berlin, December 1944" - BSS, "Heart Still Beats"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strike & Co.
Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 354
|
|
Yay, thanks for the split!
From FB's "Statement of Rights and Responsibilities":
| Quote: |
Section 4: Registration and Account Security
Facebook users provide their real names and information, and we need your help to keep it that way.
...
1. You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.
5. You will keep your contact information accurate and up-to-date. |
Yes, they have various privacy levels...
But a "My Pants" account is against the TOS. (A "My Pants" Page might be viable; I'm somewhat confused as to the difference between a Page and an Account)
Nor do they have tools to create an account under your name, and then display false personal information... So, I can't make an account w/ my real info but have it display my name as Strike (last name: "& Co.") and my age is 52 and say that I live in The Enchanted Forest.
What really confuses me... I grew up being paranoid about the 'net, and fundamentally don't understand why "users provide their real names and information" is a good thing. It seems the complete opposite of the way I think the 'net should be treated.
I expect people to lie--especially online--so I believe the solution is to require people to lie. It seems the only moral answer :) ...and then Facebook says, "But lying is wrong!"
Normally I agree with that, but... the 'net is Different! Yar! ;)
...so it's not so much Privacy that I'm concerned about (did I mention that I usually think everything on the 'net should be not-private?), but their insistance on being truthful.
Does that make sense now? ^_^
_________________
"Like a photo of Berlin, December 1944" - BSS, "Heart Still Beats"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
|
|
|
Granted, I think he's had it for a while and Facebook does pretty a pretty good job when you sign up to not let you choose 
