Workplace by Facebook opens to sell enterprise social networking to the masses
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Beyond that, am I the only one surprised at Live being half-heartedly pushed as part of Workplace? The use-cases they give seem liminal at best, and even the mockups they made are really half-assed. Seems like even Facebook Inc doesn’t believe in Live’s potential in the workplace, which seems narrow-sighted. Sure, Live might not be a great internal corporate tool, but it could be a great replacement for external webinars, webcasts & trainings.
For me Slack has cut down immensely on people randomly showing up in my office. Just forcing someone to write something down, and think about needing an immediate response cuts down frivolous questions. The biggest plus between it and email is that Slack pushes using public chats. I like this because I can go through during my work mental downtime and stay aware of other things going on.
Can anyone describe a situation where the introduction of Slack changed their company's culture to an "always on" mode?
For example: it is possible to ignore people's do-not-disturb settings (added relatively recently, after a long period of asking) to force their phone to blow up at four in the morning. This empowers assholes to be bigger assholes and strengthens a shitty culture by providing tools to be shittier; you can never not be at their beck and call; if you refuse to answer, that's you being bad and not the person who feels entitled to interrupt your life on a whim.
You also cannot mute or block users on a Slack. This disempowers people downrange of assholes and strengthens a shitty culture by not providing tools to avoid the perpetuators of shitty culture. (They have been asked for this feature and have refused.)
How is this any different than someone calling you at 4am? Or sending a bunch of emails? This has nothing to do with Slack and everything to do with a bad company.
There is a significantly different social implication to clicking the "fuck your do-not-disturb settings" link and calling you. (I would argue that the former should be worse, but it isn't, ever.) Ephemera matters. Context matter. Slack creates a bad context. They own that.
When I leave my desk my phone gets direct messages to me that I've missed. It is incredibly useful and is doing it's job. All of the complaints above are all just deflecting your company's lack of respect for your personal time. Don't feel like being on instant messenger away from your PC? Don't install it on your phone, or turn mobile notifications off.
I've worked at previous jobs where my manager would send emails at 1AM to my BlackBerry and expect a quick response. I didn't blame BlackBerry for that, I blamed my previous management for expecting me to be online 24x7.
Regarding public communications — I think that only aggravates the noise/always-on issue, but if that’s your think, you can of course do that on email. See examples from Stripe [0] and Buffer [1]. (Not sure if/how that scales though! Was there a follow-up from these companies?)
[0]: https://stripe.com/blog/email-transparency
[1]: http://joel.is/how-we-handle-team-emails-at-our-startup-defa...
My public communications preference I have based on Buffer and Stripe. It's not that everyone has to respond, but that I think that the more information everyone has the quicker they can respond to problems in the right manner.
It's the hell to get notifications all day, before you're at work, after you left work. The slack dev didn't bother putting a button to stop beeping on incoming message or to stop receiving messages at all.
But, like pretty much anything, I could see it being extremely frustrating if forced on a group in an awkward way.
Then why are their own advertisements touting their product being used in dysfunctional ways? Doesn't that set the tone for how (and where) it will be deployed and used?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11197449
> The lion-manager is gazing out a window, has a passing thought about "flying umbrellas". Naturally, he instantly sends a mass-broadcast, interrupting and disrupting the work of the entire office. (Who all, of course, leap joyously to implement his brilliant vision.)
> Now, this makes a lot of sense if you want to sell copies of Slack, since it appeals to the managers with the power to approve-purchases and mandate-adoption... But it implies Slack is going to either become the latest tool-of-oppression at a dysfunctional company, or that managers are going to buy Slack with the idea that they can use it to micromanage everybody.
> Further on, as the Slack team adds features, guess what kinds of features are going to get priority? The ones that sell. Which ones are those? The ones that lion-managers love and other-employees hate.
It doesn't matter if I turn off notifications I'm still expected to know generally what's happened in my company's 100 channels.
With slack it becomes my responsibility to dig through those 100 channels. With email it's the sender's responsibility to make sure I'm on the list if they need/want my response/input and if it turns out I'm not interested I can easily mute that one thread
I certainly wouldn't ever pick SF/PDT as a timezone.
Facebook
This massive social network deserves a mention on its own.
This makes up 7% of the websites accessed at work and is a
major contributor to all the wasted time in the workplace.
1. Social media sites. Not surprisingly, visiting social
media sites is the black hole of workplace productivity.
Facebook is the top social destination, with 41 percent of
survey respondents logging in from work every day. Facebook
is not the only culprit however; LinkedIn, Google+, Twitter
and more recently Pinterest all claim their share of
work-hour traffic.
I wouldn't work at a company that used Facebook as an internal communication tool, because it would encourage massive time wasting.
But still, I understand how it could encourage checking your Facebook account even more.
They have a strong incentive to keep people on their site for as long as possible and they are extremely good at it, so I think it's a huge mistake for companies to send employees anywhere near it.
It's just a dumbed down version of Messenger, and I don't think a team in my company want to use it, Slack is much better and worth learning. After several months we're just using it as another Viber/Whatsapp/etc..
The technical document https://developers.facebook.com/docs/workplace/account-manag... includes an example to create a new user via an authenticated POST request.
Previously facebook had a party line that each human had at most one facebook account (which was in contrast to its competitors where some humans had more than one account, e.g. @HistoryInPics), and creating an account required a few more hurdles than a single POST request. Now that businesses can create users it looks like that line has subtly disappeared.
If workplace takes off, I would expect faster growth in monthly active users because both the numerator will be larger and now business will be paying people to log in to facebook, and those users will also likely want to glance at their personal accounts, as well.
Plus, this move makes it harder for corporate firewalls to block facebook altogether, hits against google suite, and makes browsing facebook at work defensible... super interesting.
This should also keep facebook proper blockable.
I didn't catch the baseball theory part of your comment advertised in the beginning.
The reality is that to access all O365 products, you need to have access to CDN domains and live.com authentication infrastructure, and you need to constantly monitor errors in the network because cloud scale services change IPs all of the time.
I'm sure FB will be similar.
Overall this seems like a great tool for a workplace. Trouble is it has to compete with Slack and, arguably, things like Confluence.
Designed in NSA - Made in UK.
I have no particular authority in saying if this is actually the case or not, but my feeling is that in Europe (and especially in Germany) there will be a lot of resistance towards Facebook solutions (the recent Whatsapp decision to share data with the parent company is another thing that did not sit well here, for example).
This, unfortunately, might get traction here as well.
Seems like an insane amount of risk for such a very tiny reward.
Besides, what does the EULA say on the product? Their EULA usually says something along the lines of they can do whatever they want with your data. I'm interested to see if anyone sees something similar in the enterprise agreement.
People don't feel comfortable sharing their pictures of cats and such but businesses have their livelihood to protect.
The ultimate arbiter is reality, and in reality this sort of thing does already happen. We could do it brazenly over the counter, or alternatively I could pay Facebook to act as a consultant; to give me their view of my market. To satisfy the legal chaps, we can just scrape the names off the data and then summarise it in a nice binder. A number of financial companies do this today. The fines are peanuts compared to the profits.
Even when it isn't company policy in some way, it is easy to bribe an employee to simply hand over a big chunk of data. The "real world" shows us that this does and will happen.
As an aside, I would suggest that the "real world" in the sense of which you are speaking doesn't even exist. Everyone, everywhere, builds their own cocoon of social mores and illusions and local conventions, and from my perspective it is you who doesn't understand it. If you're going to suggest that laws will stop it happening, I remind you that the law is whatever you can successfully negotiate and argue and persuade and influence as necessary, and big companies with deep pockets can do that very well. Some things are very hard to argue; shooting someone for no reason on live TV. Some things are eminently arguable; the Chinese wall between the data holding division and the business consultancy division. Really happening, every day, in the real world.
Lots of illicit things happen should we just shut down the world entirely? Cars kill people so we shouldn't approach the streets. Food can make you ill if supply chains don't handle it properly so we should stop eating.
You are suggesting that because people break laws we should not do things. That's not how it works.
It's not at all disappointing to me to me that you bleat bullshit about "citation needed" as a defence. It's pretty expected around here; no need to actually do any work, just sit smugly pretending that you're civil and polite. Here we are engaging in yet more bullshit passive aggressiveness, each of us pretending that we're being oh-so-civil and look, look, it's the other one who's wrong, I'm just asking questions.
If you actually wanted to know, you could have found lots of examples yourself. You DON'T want to know, because this isn't about knowing anything. This is about some stranger on the internet disagreeing with your pre-formed opinions (which are pretty unusual around here, actually - the common religion here of free market fundamentalism would take it as read that FB will sell your information to your competitors) and your opportunity to posture and present yourself as reasonable.
So fuck you and fuck me, and fuck this passive-aggressive childishness that goes on around here as petty posturing from smug dickheads like you and like me. If you choose not to believe me, that's fine, but don't you dare suggest that it's my fucking job to educate you. I'm done with this passive-aggressive crap.
"You are suggesting that because people break laws we should not do things. That's not how it works."
No I'm not, and you fucking know it. I'm suggesting that giving your information to FB will lead to other people getting it. That's what I'm suggesting. This junk on the end about cars killing people is your strawman attempt to smugly present yourself as some kind of adult.
Our open source community is always looking to improve and all feedback helps.
May I ask how your experience was on the web with Mattermost?
Regarding mobile performance, may I also ask what iPhone model and network speed you're using?
We publish mobile benchmarks, and I'm just wondering if your results are the same or different: https://docs.mattermost.com/deployment/push.html#mobile-perf...
The Mattermost iOS app works best on a fast connection. To accommodate slow connections, we're adding React Native (same technology as Facebook) to get competitive with Facebook's iOS app performance over time.
Here's the new Mattermost iOS app roadmap and backlog: http://forum.mattermost.org/t/react-native-roadmap/2339
Regarding the Mattermost desktop apps, on September 30 we had one of our largest product update addressing user issues. Here's the changelog: https://docs.mattermost.com/help/apps/desktop-changelog.html
Latest versions now available for download: http://about.mattermost.com/download/
Overall, we created an open source, self-hosted alternative to proprietary SaaS communication for organizations that want to minimize security, lock-in, and privacy risks.
We're constantly improving, thanks to hundreds of people around the world contributing to the project.
Whatever issue you're experiencing, please consider nominating an improvement to help us get to where you want us to be? https://www.mattermost.org/feature-ideas/
Like you my company won't use it for privacy issue (we're dealing with sensitive things), but I still find that awesome.
The money - and the attention - of the generic population is momentary.
- Stop using facebook for personal purposes and treat it like a more featureful LinkedIn
- Quit my job and find another which doesn't require me to give work information to a company which has a trove of my personal information
I think the point of making it a completely separate account is to ease companies fears of users getting sucked into the endless scroll vortex while at work, and I would doubt they'd be jumping you back and forth and showing you notifications from personal/work Facebook when logged into either service. It would also be an obvious security/privacy issue if project info was popping up in users personal notifications.
Whether or not they are going to link the accounts on the backend for their data mining purposes, was not the intent or subject I was addressing/speculating about.
I'm well aware self-hosting can be hard, especially for global companies, with broad userbase, but I'm astounded how little managers and directors care about company "secrets" getting stored at providers these days.
I never thought I'm going to miss the old Microsoft, but at least those servers and services were bought and locally hosted. Sure, they may have had backdoors, but at least it was not obviously given to a company who's making their profit out of scanning contents and selling it to the highest bidder.
We don't know for sure it a paid Gmail is scannig mail or not; if a paid Dropbox is being treated the same way for, for example, "copyrighted" content the free tier is, but I would be surprised if it was completely different.
Don't forget Microsoft/LinkedIn.
The pricing seems really low for small firms and extremely expensive for larger ones. That sounds like a challenging position for the sales team working on this project.
I wonder if this comes with the full range of personalization algorithms for the feed.
Also wonder how they will handle the extensive customization that most enterprise customers will request.
It's a solid idea though, pretty similar to what Slack is trying to achieve.
it's actually great to have a more social way of catching up with people. The main driver for us was pulling all the 'coffee machine is broken' type emails out of our 'work system' (email) and also let people share pictures of their pets and different social events going on around the world.
Plus the advantage is that there was massive uptake super quickly since everyone already had built in knowledge of how to use it from facebook.
Plus I can say stuff on there without my parents commenting on every single post i ever make which is nice...
https://fbatwork.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/workplace_3min_...
An horrifically cluttered UI, but having evaluated many of these workplace collabortaion tools in the past it's actually pretty par for the course. For some reason our HR partners always wanted everything on one page, like a massive disfunctional sci-fi spacecraft dashboard with lights flashing everywhere.
Although I don't doubt Facebook's agility, I give other enterprise software companies the advantage sheerly due to their head start.
When I look at Yammer or other services that are totally fresh, I am not at all familiar. I'm totally willing to learn new interfaces and get familiar, but there are a lot of people that would prefer to stick with what they are familiar with.
I really like that it's completely separate from my 'personal' Facebook, and it seems with the rebranding from "Facebook at Work" they're trying to emphasize that separation even more.
How stupid do you think the rest of the world is?
Google recently bought API.ai for the exact same reason, albeit API.ai has raw data and Workplace would be companies internal interaction data.
I didn't know that, can you give some examples of this?
I heard about the US government making a WTO claim over bribery by Airbus in Saudi Arabia ostensibly discovered by electronic surveillance (not PRISM-related), but this is in the gray area.
[1] http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/wikileaks-enthuellung-...
[2] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150629/16134031494/nsa-d...
[3] https://theintercept.com/2014/09/05/us-governments-plans-use...
The infamous Petrobras espionage that was implied because it appeared in a slide in a training presentation is a great example of justified espionage (if it occurred; it probably occurred). Less than 2 years later, Petrobras was implicated in massive corruption scandals involving the Brazilian president, Dilma Rousseff. U.S. decision makers should probably know if a trade partner and friendly nation is about to have massive political unrest due to corruption charges!
If you wish to change the subject to "economic espionage is wrong" or something like that, feel free. If so, please don't imply my assertion is incorrect. I think that is misleading.
So no, we don't have a smoking gun. But we do have a powerful agency with questionable oversight which has proven its willingness to lie to Congress and documented its willingness to deploy intelligence assets in ways that prove "useful to U.S. industry".
[1] https://theintercept.com/2014/09/05/us-governments-plans-use...
[2] https://theintercept.com/document/2014/09/05/quadrennial-int...
This is interesting, I hadn't heard of this, are there any links to the slide?
The presentation was for analyst training, and the Petrobras intrusion was nonchalantly used as an example.
If you're just getting into learning about the Snowden leaks and NSA network exploitation, I would suggest starting from the beginning in 2013, checking out the original The Guardian articles and the NYT and Washington Post ones. Der Spiegel also received one or two leaks as well; the articles were written by Jacob Appelbaum and are fairly thorough. The Guardian and Der Spiegel articles are heavily editorialized and jump to some conclusions that were later discounted, but overall the reporting is decent.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-bra...
Does it potentially interoperate with your company's ecosystem (suppliers, customers, partners)?
I suppose that makes it better than Yammer by default. :)
Basically we wanted the single threaded chatroom with people mentions, we didn't want web forums which is what groups are.
If FB@Work really wants to compete, they will eventually have to make the slack/irc style rooms app. I also think you guys use IRC right?
Other people who say lack of single threaded chat rooms is a feature, not a bug smell like apple saying you don't need X until they release it themselves. You of course can 'make do' with whatever communication medium you have, but for us we found the chatroom useful. Nobody ever used FB@work, while natural adoption for slack in the corporation was very fast.
TBH I think google is probably slacks biggest possible competitor. Google makes a pretty good set of business apps with gmail, calendar, contacts, docs, slides, spreadsheets, google drive, small group chats & video. A lot of big corps already use them. They just need to add corporate slack-style chatrooms and forums (not email lists/ groups) and they will probably take a chunk out of slack & co quickly.
Agree. I keep wondering when Google will release this Slack like chat app. We already use the other Google tools, and even Slack shells out to Hangouts for video.
We have used GroupMe for a few years, but I am dissatisfied with how limited it is. Our team is not sitting at a computer all day and mostly needs to share information efficiently.
With 3 locations, it needs to be digital. With 2 shift blocks per day, 7 days per week, it is hard to keep everyone working collaboratively on things like promotions, social media marketing efforts, etc.
I also like that it includes the opportunity to work with other companies.
I am also a SaaS software vendor for retail store owners like me. I could definitely see integrating this into our app (ResaleAI.com) and had considered Slack and others. So yeah, I signed up to play with it internally first.
I am cautiously optimistic.
According to https://workplace.fb.com/pricing/, it's $1-$3 per user.
A cheaper server is ~$7k. It means that a company of of 9k personnel ( which is not too small ) will produce $18k per month. That can buy 2 servers per month and maybe cover some of the bandwidth costs.
To get a rack of servers - which I believe is the minimum to actually serve a company of this size - you'll need to have them on board for about 2 years (!) before profit starts to flow in. Unfortunately by that time you'll need start replacing the servers, since they have ~3 years of warranty these days.
For me this looks like no profit, which could mean two things:
1. The pricing is deliberately low, so it's either going to be raised later or it's covered from other parts of the company, and this is a step only to buy into an area currently covered by others.
2. The will use the data you provide for other purposes.
( 3. Both. )
With the first scenario, this will probably not live too long; a few years, maybe, but it's hard for me to believe that they would just pump money into this, just to eliminate others, but you never know.
With the second scenario... corporate espionage becomes obsolete.
Huh? FB has the expertise in connecting people to each other and information. In hindsight, it looks like an obvious next step.
"Your Workplace account is separate from your personal Facebook account."
How do I create a separate username and password for my Workplace account?
To separate your personal account from your Workplace account:
Go to your Security Settings and click Sign Up Manually
Enter and confirm a New Password
Click Unlink Account
Note: Once your Facebook accounts are unlinked you'll have to log in separately to your Workplace account."
There's quite a few companies they will not be able to sign up unless they provide an on premise solution (which I doubt they are interested int) and I have a feeling that even if they push the message hard it'll not be trivial to not have carry over privacy concerns (pretty important for enterprise software). My gut tells me they should have released this as a completely separate entity to avoid fragmentation (I suppose this would also be the default positioning argument).
As an outsider it's also an interesting case of make vs. buy (MS-Yammer vs. Workplace).
Marketplace products are the ONLY thing Facebook can do that it's direct competitors can't. And they nailed it.
This is a common mistake - the existence of technology is not the same as mainstream adoption.
==
How much does this cost? The pricing model is based on a monthly fee per active user
I've been so very satisfied with how much of my personal data they sell to marketers thus far, I really want them to start tracking me at work too.
Hopefully they will pair the launch with an aggressive sales campaign targeted at people in HR so I won't get a say in the matter and it'll just be rolled out for my coworkers without our input. That would be just swell.
Would you like to know more?
Right now it is heavily focused on consumerism.
Facebook has already shown it is can easily identify depression, radicalization, political associations, and other "aberrant" behaviours.
I do not trust Mark Zuckerberg as an individual, nor FB as a company to fill that role in society.
Linking to TC really isn't the best way to deliver what it is, and linking to Workplace directly is a much more 'HN' style submission.
Sure. Also:
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks
Because if there's one thing that Stallman has consistently predicted, it's that if you give your private data to a firm, they will absolutely use it however they want.
If it's not clear that Zuckerberg has matured into a responsible leader since FB started, then I don't know what you've been reading.
And I'm saying this as somebody who has had major gripes with FB in the past, having worked on social games and had to deal with the platform and Credits.
IMO your comment is not constructive discussion.
Whether or not they go against their own rules is a moot point, given their history of changing those rules and systems with little to no notice or documentation.
They've modified privacy multiple times and changed defaults so as to trick users into sharing more than intended. There was an article not long ago about privacy implications of sharing links in the messenger, as they store links in such a way as to track the history of unrelated people who also shared the link. Not to mention various issues with undocumented collection of private data on mobile devices.
Facebook isn't really a company deserving of third-party defense in the arena of privacy.
Flip side: going from 19-year-old college kid to the CEO of a giant corporation could also sharpen shark-like tendencies and compromise previously held morals.
And the interest and exploits from Facebook has grown as well.
I mean, of course he is not that naive to use Facebook to extract peoples pics/phone numbers.
But what he can extract from it has probably grown more than he did as a person.
I like him, but he has said what he has said and he is not saint (Snowden in this case).
He's definitely still playing the "if you need info just ask" cuz they're "dumb fucks" that "trust me" game. Just worth billions with his company making as much on the same game on a worldwide scale.
Unfortunately, they have not much say in how FB is doing its business. Why are we giving MZ benefit of the doubt, when there is plenty of likely more mature people?
I does not matter if he had matured since; this was the foundation FB was built on: that you freely give away your personal information.
That said, I also don't want to be using it in my workplace and will vehemently resist any attempts at using it in my company.
I also deleted pretty much all personal details and locked down privacy and removed all posts, images, and tags.
You're absolutely right, it's a pleasure not to deal with that terrible newsfeed filled with so much misinformation and bad memes. I go on twitter a bit more but there you can curate a sweet list of incredible people in any field to follow.
Send an email and CC everyone you want to invite?
If you are attacking someone then please do it on substantive issues. (something that can be prosecuted)
For example the fact that Facebook engages in censorship (as does Google and Twitter by the way) and actively pushes propaganda trying their best to manipulate the US election. That's a real issue that might lead to some people being sued or even imprisoned after the election if their candidate doesn't win.
Like, right now I have access to some 300,000 phone numbers. All I gotta do is run a shell command and then a SQL query. So can any other engineer in the company. I trust that none of us would use this access maliciously, but how many of our passwords have been leaked in various hacks? What if we're targeted for a hack? What if somebody gets fired and becomes pissy? Hell, what if someone suffers a psychiatric episode and does something stupid?
Situation has been the same at every startup I have ever worked at.
Anyone who gives their data to an early stage startup is not considering all the implications. Me included. I do it all the time. Gotta have all the shiny tools.
And that is of little concern to anyone impacted by such an abuse and of little concern to a 19 year old having a "Holy shit people trust me" moment. I had similar moments running my own stuff in college, if you quoted me out of context I would sound way eviler than Zuck's quote I'm sure. Power, even just a modicum of power, makes 19 year old say dumb shit.
That whole thing about impulse control and executive functions of the brain not being fully developed until you're 25.
The more important question is did he ever abuse that access? [in a way that isn't described in the TOS]
The terms of service is one of those shrink-wrap style of licenses that gives them close to free reign. There's plenty of abuse and sneakiness of Facebook on record. He was fine with it all. He also wasn't 19 during most of it. He also still does things that contradict his profit-motivated claims like most scumbags do. Key one being lying about value of privacy while buying nearby properties to ensure his.
It's not that his opponents are taking one moment of an honest or halfway-decent businessman's past to paint a picture of his entire life. He's ensured that him being an ambitious, lying scumbag with a similar company is what we see him as despite the PR work. He tries hard to justify those actions over time. Then this bombshell dropped which fit totally with his actions over a long period of time to the present moment. As in, "screw everyone and get rich." It's just extra, more-specific corroboration of what seemed true all along.
That's why we're giving Zuckerberg so much shit over it. It clearly reflects who he is. He's simply a wiser, moderate monster now. ;)
https://github.com/jmdugan/blocklists/blob/master/corporatio...
I don't, but other people do trust it and put information about me and photos including me into it.
Some of that information might also be useful for making informed decisions on whether to buy/sell a given security.
Oh actually, the possibilities are infinite.
For me, FB is yet to prove that it really has changed. Zuck as a person, maybe. FB, as a company, I really doubt.
2006: http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?men...
2010: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/127409/faceboo...
2013: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2047804/facebooks-new-face-re...
2016: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/business/international/fac...
These people usually refuse to see that FB has become a generic provider without regulation and competitor and in numerous cases you don't have the choice not use it. In my case, it's even in my workplace now. (Same workplace which is looking to migrate to Gmail from Exchange - and Cyrus before that - despite the countless business secrets that might be in mails.)
Quoting a person talks to everyone, even to those who trust a company no one should.
But thank you for these link, it kind of proves that the quote still stands.
I'm quite certain that everyone in the world has said silly things at certain stages of their life that could be used against them and would paint their cause in a horrible light - and by everyone I mean visionaries like Nelson Mandela, The Dali Lama, etc. and of course your run-of-the mill leaders and inspirational people.
An individual can opt out of Facebook in their personal lives relatively easily. But it is not an option to reject the primary communication tool of your business -- this platform has the potential of keeping conscientious objectors out of the workforce.
... so we don't lock you into a long-term contract
cmd-q, alt-f4, whatever you use.
Feel free to shut down all IM when you need to focus on something.
Maybe not now. But they have it. And correlating it would be trivial.
I'm already annoyed that I get my two factor codes from two different apps (one for Facebook, one for everything else), I'd be extra annoyed if it had to be three.
I feel that the marginal benefit of social media systems has peaked. It's begun to make interactions less human and less personal; the gain over using email is negligible. I don't need to see your picture, I just want to know when I'll have VPN access.
I hope the back lash is enormous. Security = Privacy = Democracy; you can't have one without the others.
Chilling effects brought on by "you should be careful what you say (and to whom)" is the death of freedom of speech, and with it "free" society.