The Gaming Den

//

Posted to my Facebook about a week ago wrote: Check it out: "FACEBOOKERS: Facebook is at it again....violating your personal information. As of today, there is a new privacy setting called "Instant Personalization" that shares data with non-facebook websites and it is automatically set to "Allow." Go to Account > Privacy Settings > Applications and Websites and un...check "Allow". Please copy and paste if you value what little is left of your privacy!

As I recall, the directions for shutting this off weren't exactly correct, but close enough that I was able to figure it out.

Game On,
fbmf

Anything you do on facebook should be considered freely available to the web. If you care about anyone seeing something you do on facebook, don't do it. Those fuckers care less about privacy than anyone else I know of, including the British government.

fbmf wrote:As I recall, the directions for shutting this off weren't exactly correct, but close enough that I was able to figure it out.

Game On,
fbmf

Here's some quotes directly from facebook:

If you opt out, your public Facebook information can still be shared by your friends to these partner sites unless you block the application.

So, what's public Facebook information, you ask?

Publicly available information includes your name, profile picture, gender, current city, networks, friend list, and Pages. This information makes it easier for friends, family, and other people you know to connect with you.

Fun fact, they recently converted pretty much everything into Pages. Was that an underhanded way to make more of people's information public?

And how do you block the applications? It took some digging even when I knew where the link was, but here:
Linky link

You can opt-out of instant personalization by disallowing it here. By clicking "No Thanks" on the Facebook notification on partner sites, partners will delete your data. To prevent your friends from sharing any of your information with an instant personalization partner, block the application: Microsoft Docs.com, Pandora, Yelp.

The bottom line is that you really shouldn't have any information on facebook that you don't want to share with the entire internet.

Glad I'm a fairly open person then...

Wait. Wait.

People are putting their information up on a site for the explicit purpose of sharing that information with other people, and then they are surprised when that information is not private?

I thought the concern people are having isn't that their information isn't private completely hidden from the rest of the world, but that the control that they have over who has access to that information is in a continually dwindling spiral.

It's not surprising but that doesn't mean it doesn't bother people.

Uh, what is privacy, if not the ability to control what others know about you?

Here's a timeline of the changes to their privacy policy.

Also, you can put information up under one privacy policy, and then they change things and reveal it, or add a new feature to automatically share it that you have to then turn off.

//

That's not much of a privacy policy. I doubt it would stand under court scrutiny, honestly, their changes being not according to the prior privacy policy.

Courts, even conservative ones, take a dim view of opt-out.

-Crissa

NineInchNall wrote:Wait. Wait.

People are putting their information up on a site for the explicit purpose of sharing that information with other people, and then they are surprised when that information is not private?

What Facebook does is basically take an existing feature which, since it has been implemented, has protected your data and suddenly turn off the protection, usually silently. They have done this repeatedly now and when confronted about it don't even pretend it was a mistake. Pretty much Facebook's stance is "this is our data, not your data. We only protected your data so we could bait you into entering it".

Why anyone would want to use that site is beyond me.

Facebook's eroding Privacy Policy: A Timeline

-Crissa

//

I didn't read IGTN's link today, but the timeline got another link elsewhere.

Why, because sometimes... Wait. when has this ever happened before?

-Crissa

Can we coin a new term for the Den? Let's call people who never properly read other people's posts a Crissa.

Because a lot of that has been happening lately and "Crissa" is a more concise term than"Someone who never properly reads other people's posts."

Uh...

I'd say that there are other people who have both repeatedly, and consistently, misread, misunderstood, and then argued stridently on the 'facts' that they 'read' in a post.

Instead, of you know, asking about what they didn't understand in that person's post. Usually, you're more likely to agree when you understand, than when you don't have a flying fuck of a clue as to what is going on.

Honestly though, I don't know what I'd call what Crissa did. It's odd, in that her link and IGTN's are the same, but it's not like she copypastad IGTN's link and then said it was her link. Past records have never had her doing that, so this is just a fluke.

Yeah hell, if you're going to ignore long posts, then at least don't argue about them without skimming for salient information... (which is, really, what I do... very seldom do I actually read posts in their entirety.)

Zinegata wrote:Can we coin a new term for the Den? Let's call people who never properly read other people's posts a Crissa.

Because a lot of that has been happening lately and "Crissa" is a more concise term than"Someone who never properly reads other people's posts."

Why would we call someone who properly reads others' posts a "Crissa"?

CatharzGodfoot wrote:

Zinegata wrote:Can we coin a new term for the Den? Let's call people who never properly read other people's posts a Crissa.

Because a lot of that has been happening lately and "Crissa" is a more concise term than"Someone who never properly reads other people's posts."

Why would we call someone who properly reads others' posts a "Crissa"?

Very funny.

Judging__Eagle wrote:Uh...

I'd say that there are other people who have both repeatedly, and consistently, misread, misunderstood, and then argued stridently on the 'facts' that they 'read' in a post.

Yeah. But Crissa does it a lot. You don't have much experience with her, do you?

For instance:

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=51170&start=75

angelfromanotherpin wrote:

Crissa wrote:No, it's not founded in the greek for uterus. It's founded in the English for 'woman who doth protest too much'.

That's why you should probably not claim things aren't sexist without asking why. Just because you get along just fine being a second-class citizen without ever wondering why, does not mean it doesn't bother other people.

-Crissa

Um, your own link says 'This theory is the source of the name, which stems from the Greek word for uterus, hystera (ὑστέρα).'

Maybe we should change the definition to someone who shoots themselves in the foot with their own link?