Facebook confirms it is scanning your private messages to increase Likes
thenextweb.com
thenextweb.com
Anyone remember the headlines several years ago when "Google 'scans' your emails to serve targetted ads'? When was the last time you heard someone complain about that anymore? No one does, because it doesn't matter.
Why should me sharing a link via a PM and my action be aggregated into an anonymous number worry me? How is the argument different from Google 'scanning your emails'?
Social networks nowadays seem to be competing on ways of justifying bigger numbers on the counters. It makes sense, the bigger the number the bigger the social proof which will attract webmasters. Scanning PM's for shares isn't something I might of thought they would do, but they do and it makes sense. The whole privacy debate surrounding this particular case is a complete non-issue for me though and will probably fade into insignificance just like Google scanning your emails.
An action from a big company that shifts the boundaries of acceptability in privacy would be a justified concern, but in this instance no land here in the privacy war has been lost. Nothings really happened.
Make a URL shortener service which allows you to send a link to someone from within facebook - but it blocks all known FB domains and IPs from viewing said URL.
It will only take the first click on it then expire. if all the first clicks are from FB - it would mean that FB is pre-emptively scanning and tracking all URL messages - even before users actually visit.
This would not be for likes - but for visits.
No, I don't want facebook to "Like" links for me if I didn't explicitly say I liked them.
It's not that it doesn't matter. Just that the people for who it mattered just left/never joined gmail and don't have any reason to complain any more.
For facebook it's the same. People for who it matters will complain now and you won't hear much complaints after they all leave.
Let's say I'm a republicrat and I'm furiously sending private messages with links to democan sites showing my friends how evil I think they are. Except now I'm told every one of my links as just made those republicrat sites more liked an I'm helping make it look like they are more popular than they really are.
Scanning emails to serve you ads does not leak information to the public indirectly. Increasing like counts does.
Microsoft begs to differ, at least when trying to sell you Office 365: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDbrX5U75dk
The gmail analogy is a little off, a closer one would be to compare to gtalk. Do google scan gtalk messages?
Also what if the message is "This is so crap: <link>" does that increase the like?
> The gmail analogy is a little off, a closer one would be
> to compare to gtalk. Do google scan gtalk messages?
Unless you specifically select "Go off the record" I strongly suspect that they do."Move fast and break expectation of privacy"
Then there's the more extreme route of using Tor for all browsing.
What makes up the number shown on my Like button? http://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/plugins/like/
The number shown is the sum of:
The number of likes of this URL. The number of shares of this URL (this includes copy/pasting a link back to Facebook). The number of likes and comments on stories on Facebook about this URL. The number of inbox messages containing this URL as an attachment.
To my mind, this is not something Google set out to do. Although to compete with Facebook, I imagine they may have changed direction. We have Facebook to thank for that.
Let's imagine for a second that the future brings us the proverbial "video telephone" that even the most non-technical person expects to one day be standard issue. Crystal clear, real-time communication with both audio and video as available to every person as owning a cell phone is today. Now, hold that thought.
Should companies be invited into every conversation we have on this device? Should they be permitted to show ads to us as we converse?
We never had companies keeping a record of everyone who we telephone and listening in to our telephone conversation to try to figure out what junk postal mail to send us. Would this be different? How?
Ok, now we can return to present day reality. The question is: Where do we draw the line? Should companies be a party to every conversation? What will happen if we leave this question to the unscrupulous kids working and compromised adults working at Facebook? I doubt they would see anything wrong with what I described in the previous paragraph.
I rarely use Javascript (certainly not for email) so I wouldn't know about all the latest Gmail "features". :)
What I was hinting at was a sort of evolutionary pressure on Google... to start using personally identifiable information. That pressure being Facebook as a perceived competitor.
Although I still believe google tracks this covertly, FB is overt about it.
Did the like counter on my blog just go up by 500?
Facebook is the antithesis of privacy.
Dreamers think FB has value.
Does the average person, of any age, think privacy has value?
What's more valuable?
Can all value be measured in monetary terms?
Web traffic has value (e.g. we can sell display ads). FB has web traffic. But so did milliondollarwebsite.com.
Privacy OTOH seems a long-lived concept, dating from at least the dawn of civilisation. I'd argue we have a lot more privacy than our ancestors. A trend that has continued unabated for hundreds of years. FB is but a {milli,micro,nano,pico}second in the evolutionary timeline of privacy.
I'm not throwing away my fig leaf just yet.
There is not privacy and I do not expect any. That's the way to be happy and care free on the Internet. It's simple: Don't post anything privately or publicly that you do not want the whole world to see.
Asking why people are still using Facebook is roughly similar to asking why people use 123456 as a password.
> Your presumption is pretty much all I can think to rationalize it and that's just sad.
You need to think harder.
Plus LOL at your creating a new HN account for the explicit purpose of putting in your sophomoric response.
Breaking things tends to make unhappy the people using.
Also, you cant send life-changing notifications through messages to all your friends, for example there is a cap I think on to message 30 people at once.