One day after we learned about an all hands privacy meeting at Facebook, the company has confirmed the meeting but is clarifying what’s being discussed. The company has told us, “We have an open culture and it should come as no surprise that we’re providing a forum for employees to ask questions on a topic that has received a lot of outside interest.” In other words, it’s a Q&A session with the company’s 1,000+ employees.
While many were hoping Facebook to make a significant change in their privacy stance, it sounds as though the company may instead stay the course. For many users (and people in the press), this could be a huge disappointment. While we are still hopeful that Facebook will decide to make a change to their “Instant Personalization” service, it sounds as though we shouldn’t expect any imminent changes any longer.
Facebook is under an immense amount of scrutiny for their most recent privacy changes and day after day there is more being written on the absurdity of many of the company’s privacy policies. Unfortunately no change will be made for now though and instead the company is going to host a forum to inform the company employees about their rationale behind the latest decisions.
Just when you thought there was hope for change, Facebook sounds as though they’ll be staying the course. What would you like to see Facebook change?
![[Inside Social Apps 2012]](http://www.allfacebook.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/allfacebook2/images/ISA2012_336x100_F_RegisterNow.gif)
![[AllFacebook Stats: Facebook Analytics for Your Business]](http://www.allfacebook.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/allfacebook2/images/stpro_allfacebookstats.gif)
![[How can Facebook change your business?]](http://www.allfacebook.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/allfacebook2/images/FMB_A_MAY2011_336x100_F.gif)
I am very likely to switch to Diaspora.
Comment by jt — May 13, 2010 @ 9:10 am
I'd like to see Facebook allow users to determine what information is "public" rather than defining these terms for users, and I'd like to see default settings be inward-looking father than outward. Finally, I'd like to see Facebook acknowledge that proper consent for information collection and disclosure can only come from the individual. Allowing a user's "friend" to decide what information to disclose about that individual is not true consent.
Comment by Greg — May 13, 2010 @ 9:12 am
Why all the privacy? Facebook should have held the meeting by webcast?
Comment by Brent Logan — May 13, 2010 @ 9:58 am
Privacy on the Internet is a myth. Facebook or any other social web site can NOT guarantee privacy in any form or fashion. Don't ever be clueless on this topic. And don't assume you can get privacy.
So, how do you get privacy on the web? Easy, don't do things that need privacy when you interact on the web. If you want privacy from the web, then don't use the web. Plain and simple.
Comment by Narg — May 13, 2010 @ 11:21 am
A la the Zuckster's IM: so the public thought FB gave a $**+ about privacy: dumb F()}<Z
Comment by fjpoblam — May 13, 2010 @ 11:41 am
Facebook has the opportunity to lead the way when it comes to online privacy. I agree with Greg, give consumers the options of what information Facebook can share or sell to 3rd parties. Make the process simple and easy to follow.
Comment by Komail Mithani — May 13, 2010 @ 12:06 pm
How does a meeting of Facebook employees help me, a user? Sounds like Facebook is serving its corporate interests, not those of the users.
Comment by Wayne — May 13, 2010 @ 12:59 pm
If they don't change immediately – I am outta there. Plus, there is still E-mail, instant messager, phone (God forbid). This was supposed to be a fun, easy way to communicate with people you wished to – hence "accepting" or "ignoring" friend requests. I don't believe I agreed to let them "sell me out". Next, they'll want your SS# so they can track you like the government- oh that's right, it wasn't supposed to EVER be an ID #…….What next? I wondered how someone commented on my fb page that i had never "allowed".
Comment by CA — May 13, 2010 @ 5:26 pm
Zuckerberg's idea of us having *only one* identity is ludicrous. I don't share everything with everyone. I have layers of intimacy. For example, I don't share my sex life, political ideas, or off-color humor with my boss. But I *am* connected to him, and *could* share some things.
If I could change something about Facebook I would change this ridiculous idea of one "identity" that has to be FORCED into sharing on all the same level. OF COURSE we use the site to share — but I want to share according to *my* comfort level and *my* layers of intimacy. I think Facebook could learn something from Vox.com by sixapart. On Vox, each post is selected to be visible to "just Family", "just Friends", "Family & Friends", or publicly to the world. This is reasonable, human, and reflects our normal human layers of intimacy well. Since sixapart seems to have gone relatively dormant and is no longer actively developing Vox or Moveable Type, I think Facebook could easily incorporate the Vox layers of intimacy idea and provide desireable value to users.
That said, I know myself and all my friends are now actively looking for an alternative to Facebook also. We feel that we've been treated like cattle instead of human beings, and mostly we feel like we've been lied to. The Facebook "story" on privacy keeps changing… We no longer trust the system. We like it, and wish we had been seen as valuable participants whose feelings matter, instead of as revenue producing units. But that not being the case, we're all looking for an alternative. I also am interested in what the Diaspora group will come up with and am watching.
Comment by Maya Libretti — May 13, 2010 @ 8:01 pm
I suspect (or at the very least, hope) that given the scuttlebutt we've heard on the news and here, before too long, Mark Zuckerberg will find himself where he will likely not want to be but needs to be: In front of a panel of angry legislators and/or regulators asking–no, demanding–the rationale behind his MO. If that happens, I fully expect him to do a full waste dump out every orifice imaginable.
Better still if said hearings were televised or otherwise broadcast…
Comment by IJ — May 14, 2010 @ 1:24 am
Pandora alphabet beadspandora animals beadpandora bBraceletspandora bracelets salepandora beadspandora charmspandora jewelrypandora charm braceletcheap pandora charmspandora charms on sale
Comment by pandora jewelry — July 13, 2011 @ 5:55 am
Pandora Jewelry tends to make our life more pandora silver charms colored and delightful. No matter that you're poor or simply rich, In my opinion you must often be longing to own one or two some famous types jewelry in your life. Now there are many legendary brands jewelry like pandora jewelry, Cartier jewelry, Bvlgari jewelry, VanCleef & Arpels jewelry and so on. We don't know which often brands is advisable, but It is my opinion we only will want to choose many pieces of suitable jewelry from a lot of jewelry in the world.
Comment by pandora charms — October 10, 2011 @ 5:07 am
There are also a number of quirkier beads, such a polka dots or love hearts.
Foil
The foil beads have a slightly more metallic effect Pandora Alphabet Charms
rather than the smoother coloured beads. They have a shimmer about them and look lovely when mixed with the other beads. Again they are available in a range of colours.
Lampwork
Lampwork beads are often of personal taste, some people love them whilst others won't use them.
Comment by Pandora Charms — October 22, 2011 @ 5:25 am
good info, excellent information for myself..
I optimism for anyone can easily take this info
many persons use facebook but just small number of persons right now depth feature of facebook.
Comment by gadget | technology — November 16, 2011 @ 8:57 am