About Face

Scott Hardie | February 19, 2009
Facebook has reversed its controversial policy about keeping user-submitted content after the user leaves the site, but the uproar has not been good for them. As the operator of a social-networking site who has been criticized in the past for not removing old content by user request, I'm just a little biased in Facebook's favor on this one. Their policy only said that they would retain user content, which could mean simply that it lives in a log file somewhere, which is necessary to the permanent record-keeping of their business if they're ever subpeonaed about criminal activities or other problems arise. There's a kind of kneejerk anti-corporate paranoia that takes over when stories of this sort come out, a fear that they're going to copyright the material that you write and make a fortune off of it and leave you penniless. You know what's a good way to prevent that? Read the terms & conditions before you sign up and submit any content, and stay aware of announced changes to the policy. Theoretically, you could avoid copyright problems by self-publishing with your own web site, but there's still nothing you can do about plain theft.

All that said, I know I'm in the minority on this one. What do you think?

Scott Hardie | February 19, 2009
And since I've been asked, yeah I'm on there, as of a few minutes ago.

Lori Lancaster | February 19, 2009
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | June 10, 2009
I've only been using Facebook for a few months, and already I've become one of those users who likes things the way they were and doesn't want the site to change. In my case though, it's not about a redesign or a rules change, but the recent announcement that the site would incorporate usernames in addition to real names. So far it's only about the page URL, but I'm sure the privacy settings will soon allow you to hide your real name all over the site and only show your username. Here I was, preparing to congratulate the web's largest social networking site on its bold adherence to real names, and hold it up as proof that real names are viable for a website and proof of how meaningful that authenticity is, a subject that remains close to my heart. This doesn't convince me that real names aren't still the future of the web, but it is still disappointing.

Sarah Kyle | June 10, 2009
I know. I got the message today and was disappointed because it is turning into a myspace. I like the fact that I have to look my friends up by there name and not there url or there user name.. God I hate changes

Tony Peters | June 10, 2009
near as I can tell from reading that it's only in the web address and not in the actual page and the user name seems to be your actual name in some form

Amy Austin | June 10, 2009
Personally, I don't like the fact that, after Googling my name last night out of curiosity (the more unique former one), I had to try to scrub several instances of it from the web. Most of these were Amazon references... from wish lists, which include an option to list your e-mail address. Could be why the spam in my box has gone up so noticeably in the last few years -- fucking web-crawlers -- and I hope to see that amount start to diminish sometime... soon would be nice. I'm not of fan of my real name being all over the place, though, with or without my e-mail address. I say all the same things in all the same ways as I would without my name being attached (and even this can be a violation of privacy... or at least potentially eyebrow-raising) -- if other people don't, you can figure it out quickly enough and steer clear of them. And besides... what's to prevent someone from making up another "real name"? It's just not all that wonderful a concept to me, honestly.

Jackie Mason | June 19, 2009
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | June 19, 2009
I'm like the ONLY person on the planet that does not Facebook.

No, you're not -- I don't even have an account. Only even signed up for MySpace because of Aaron... and he's, like, the only "friend" listed on it. Him and the site founder... Tom, I think? Ha.

And I didn't find your other comments off topic, either. It's a rather sad commentary, I think, on the way things are.

Jackie Mason | June 20, 2009
[hidden by request]

Steve West | June 20, 2009
No Facebook for me. Brenda just started an account and all of her friends were so happy to see her there. She got flooded with messages and pictures and she's semi-hooked. Much like I tell her a lot of what's happening on this site, she regales me with what her friends are saying. I don't have much interest myself, being semi-antisocial, but I can understand its appeal. I have a Myspace page also but it's only for posting pictures that I want to link here. I have very limited social needs and you guys fulfill most of them already. Thanks.

Lori Lancaster | June 22, 2009
[hidden by request]

Steve West | June 22, 2009
In a nutshell.

Jackie Mason | August 10, 2009
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | August 16, 2010
I would pay good money for the ability to rename my friends on Facebook. I don't want to change what they call themselves; just how their name is spelled when I see it. From the re-re-remarried friends with four last names, to the jokers who cram long strings of special characters into their name, to the privacy-minded friends who go by an alias, I just wish I could see my friends' names as I think of them.

Lori Lancaster | August 17, 2010
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | August 18, 2010
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | August 18, 2010
In my mind, you're Lori Lancaster. You weren't one of the multi-named people I was thinking of. :-)