But it was only for your benefit! Honest! Actually hadn't read your linked article (yet) [ I always speak before thinking! ] but there's been lots of talk and at least one ars article; fortunately, our friends in the EU seem to be more concerned about privacy than 'down' here.
Apparently, these "social" sites mean more to their users than most anything else in "life". My cynical response is: "Get one!"
OK, I had to stop reading your linked info. The hypocrisy of the statement (not an apology, of course) by Facebook data scientist Adam Kramer was making me sick!
He claims Facebook is concerned:
QUOTE
that seeing friends post positive content leads to people feeling negative or left out. At the same time, we were concerned that exposure to friends’ negativity might lead people to avoid visiting Facebook. [emphasis added]
What?! If I see "positive content" by my "friends", I will feel "left out" or have "negative" feelings?! OTOH, if I read "negativity" I might "avoid visiting Facebook"?
Where's the empathy in this? I'm sure our U.S. Supreme Court is not confusing people by saying a corporation has speech rights (and now, apparently other ones
). But Facebook seems to be saying they are "concerned" about their "product". Fine, any successful company should be concerned in that way. However that the statement doesn't say anything about being concerned about the
people who
use that product. No, that's made abundantly clear in the next sentence; "people might avoid visiting Facebook"! "Visiting" = money/profit, of course. You usually get what you pay for. You lose what is taken away.[/rant]
