doctorow at January 27th, 2014 23:01 — #1
boundegar at January 27th, 2014 23:07 — #2
Doesn't BoingBoing offer this very service?
lakelady at January 27th, 2014 23:21 — #3
So? simply share less of that info on FB. They have my birthdate, college and a few books and movies. The rest I leave blank. I've lived by the dictum, "if you put it on the net it's available to anyone" for years. You don't even have to use your "real" name. If someone knows me in person they know who I am. If they only know me online, they know my pseudonym. Simple.
nixiebunny at January 28th, 2014 00:13 — #4
I have always been suspicious of the concept, so I never log into anything else with FB. And I never 'like' anything other than friends' posts. And I run AdBlock Plus, which hides all their text ads.
I'm sure it is futile, though.
speedracer at January 28th, 2014 00:52 — #5
I'm not really sure giving limited or false information to facebook is a real solution. Network analysis is a powerful tool.
I prefer the alternate solution of not using facebook. If people want to know what I'm up to, they can call me. If I want to know what they are up to, I call them.
sporkorfoon at January 28th, 2014 01:33 — #6
You've embiggened my awareness with this perfectly cromulent article.
redesigned at January 28th, 2014 01:53 — #7
👍 Likes "Privacy Violations"
redesigned at January 28th, 2014 01:53 — #8
That way only the NSA knows what you and your friends are up to?
Telephone, heh, why not telegraph? ...wait another operator might be on the wire, smoke signal then? ...oh darn another person looking at the horizon. passenger pigeon with wax sealed cylinder? ah...we might be finally getting somewhere with ye'ol'timey communication methods.
xyandzee at January 28th, 2014 02:19 — #9
WTF is it with this embiggen?? Just say enlarge, it's fewer letter and less syllables too.
Apologies for the outburst, it has been an interminable 24 hours and I require a near universal form of physical intimacy wherein two people put their arms around the neck, back, or waist of one another and closely hold each other.
tachin1 at January 28th, 2014 02:31 — #10
If you remove "So?" and "Simple" from your comment, your post makes some sense to me. There's just too much to unpack in those two little words.
shuck at January 28th, 2014 02:41 — #11
There are enough apps and web sites that require Facebook that it isn't necessarily an option to simply not use it. I have a Facebook account, as a result, where literally none of the information I provided it was accurate, except my email - which itself I originally set up purely as a spam trap for accounts that required email.
uselessmail at January 28th, 2014 03:11 — #12
Better yet... create another FB account with no real information for the sole purpose of logging into websites which 'need' an FB login. Simple!
boundegar at January 28th, 2014 04:01 — #13
Not in my world, there aren't. Facebooklessness works just fine for me.
controla at January 28th, 2014 06:54 — #14
This is plain BS. The webmaster that configures the login service with facebook can select specifically what information the login process will request, and that can be as few as email address and real name. Which is all you really need to create a local account for the logged-in user in your website. @TheBakeryLDN is really promoting FUD here and should not be taken seriously.
It's up to site administrators to protect users information and be clear on what information they are really collecting.
bzmaclachlan at January 28th, 2014 07:57 — #15
I use the word occasionally. For me, it's a (very) mild form of trolling. I grew up around compulsive language correctors, and I sometimes can't resist pushing those buttons. That, and the word inevitably reminds me of "cromulent." Being reminded of "cromulent" is always good.
mattandrews at January 28th, 2014 07:59 — #16
Yes: this article is really exaggerating the issue. When a website wants to allow login via Facebook it has to specifically request almost all of these properties: Facebook's own docs state that:
[...] the app can access their public profile and friend list, the pieces of information that are visible to everyone. Each other piece of information that someone adds to their Facebook profile is secured behind permissions.
This means that the app/site in question will pop up a box asking for those permissions explicitly (eg. "this app wants to access your photos" etc) and the user must approve that personally before logging in. Sure, you can argue that sites shouldn't be asking for all that data, but it's at the user's discretion to grant it and it's about as transparent as it could be: Facebook aren't hiding what they're doing.
chickied at January 28th, 2014 08:14 — #17
Having worked for corporate America, I am always amused at the hype about OMG they know your favorite books. Hell, most places I know are barely competent enough to work their databases to use the email information. A giant flood of information is just as useless as none. Kudos to the company that can actually monetize my love of giant squid. Use that information for good or evil, but use it!
l_mariachi at January 28th, 2014 10:27 — #18
Why? It’s a perfectly cromulent word.
(It’s an old Simpsons gag. I’d link a video clip but they all seem to have been taken down.)
claylo at January 28th, 2014 10:30 — #19
This is linkbait FUD.
The screenshot you're seeing is the list of things an operator may ask to know.
It is up to the Facebook user to grant (or deny) access to this information about themselves.
I expect more from Cory Doctorow for some reason. I've adjusted my expectations accordingly.
xzzy at January 28th, 2014 10:54 — #20
I've never had a facebook account and I can use the internet just fine. So I think you might be a little off on how important facebook is.
next page →