Though Facebook will occasionally talk about the transparency of governments and corporations, what it really wants to advance is the transparency of individuals – or what it has called, at various moments, “radical transparency” or “ultimate transparency”. The theory holds that the sunshine of sharing our intimate details will disinfect the moral mess of our lives. With the looming threat that our embarrassing information will be broadcast, we’ll behave better. And perhaps the ubiquity of incriminating photos and damning revelations will prod us to become more tolerant of one another’s sins. “The days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly,” Zuckerberg has said. “Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.”

The point is that Facebook has a strong, paternalistic view on what’s best for you, and it’s trying to transport you there. “To get people to this point where there’s more openness – that’s a big challenge. But I think we’ll do it,” Zuckerberg has said. He has reason to believe that he will achieve that goal. With its size, Facebook has amassed outsized powers. “In a lot of ways Facebook is more like a government than a traditional company,” Zuckerberg has said. “We have this large community of people, and more than other technology companies we’re really setting policies.”

Netflix did a movie on this called The Circle with Tom Hanks and Emma Watson. I'm still not sure if it was supposed to be for or against the concept. lilmookieesquire, we discussed this. These paragraphs embody the movie perfectly.

"Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.”

No, we all have different, although related, identities for different situations. The person I am at work is not the person I am with my nieces and nephew, or with my oldest friends, or with my parents, or with the utility company, or with the government, or with....

It has nothing to do with integrity, but with what is appropriate for different sets of complex and subtle relationships.

I'm guessing Zuckerberg doesn't understand this because it's the kind of thing you learn by having friends in high school.

Take it up with the Zuck! ;)

Yeah, I wasn't directing that at you, but at him.

I mean, I've been getting "chicken little-ed" about this for a while, I totally get it. ;)

Skip the movie and read the book, it’s a lot better.

I didn't even realize there was a book. I figured how could they mess up a movie with Emma Watson and Tom Hanks.

Why is there no underfuckingrated mod, steele?! :P

I asked Tinder for my data. It sent me 800 pages of my deepest, darkest secrets

No one is tracking the illegal political ads in your Facebook feed

sigh...

I don't fancy Silicon Valley or even the West Coast has been traditionally libertarian.
I think it's become *increasingly* libertarian. I think Silicon Valley attracts libertarians.
But I always thought that Silicon Valley was fairly liberal (until people started dying off/moving away to surrounding states- Oregon, Washington, Colorado, (Austin) Texas.

Am I wrong here?

I feel like it's no coincidence Zuckerburg was from the East Coast.

Probably increasingly, but historically California did have it's conservatives. They did elect Reagan twice.

But the rich people of Silicon Valley don't like government telling them how to spend their hard earned dollars that in no way were earned with a heavy dependency on social programs or infrastructure. I also think it's a generational thing, the young silicon valley "libertarians" of today were raised in a different environment of media and education. (::cough:: Plus the Koch Brothers' propaganda.) A lot of the techies also came from a background of thinking they were smarter than everyone else around them anyway. They don't grasp that even having access to a computer as a child put them ahead of a large part of the competition. I mean I was fiddling with BASIC at like 6 years old on a c64 at home. No other kid I knew at the time had that opportunity.

I feel like that was the first wave of white flight though that flipped the neighboring states red.

With the investment Silicon Valley housing prices starting pushing people out that wanted to live there still, kinda. Maybe. I could be putting lipstick on a technicolor rainbow of something something I'm bad at metaphors.

I'm afraid I don't have enough knowledge to have an opinion on that. I just know that none of the current situation is sustainable.

putting lipstick on a technicolor rainbow of something something I'm bad at metaphors.

Tagline?

*and Nixon

And Pete Wilson (gov) was a huge creep

Don't forget Ahnold.

He was super close to being president. Orin Hatch was talking about how the "born in the IS" law was "outdated".

Orin Hatch called something outdated.

You know the mouse could just get out of the maze.

Careful, Kaczynski.

Just haaaad to reply.

Not using Facebook doesn't make you a crazy hermit.

And it's not just facebook. It's not even just Silicon Valley. It's the kind of world we live in where every last bit of data about your life is being vaccuumed up and sold to anyone with the scratch in order for them to influence your behaviors.

It appears to me the data is being volunteered. The fact that it is being decimated is only natural. Nobody hacked this info. There is nothing new about the use of it for profit just that the method is much more efficient.

No, see, you're missing the scalable part. Harvesting one tree at a time more efficiently is inconvenient, but still relatively safe for the environment. Being able to harvesting all the trees, at once, more efficiently, is an ecological disaster.

And saying data is being volunteered ignores that mouse was already in the maze without knowing what it was, while those with access to resources built the maze vastly more powerful around the mouse.

Ok I do have a problem with the Equifax sorts of data mines. Places that gather data that you have to provide to do business and give you no notice of your file or compensate you for the profit they make on it.

I have little sympathy for people who post pictures of their possessions, the address of the residence, and the fact that they like to suck other peoples toes on a dating site and wonder how that becomes public knowledge.

There is NOBODY who doesn't know that anything posted on the net is subject to being exposed. Everybody knows that email is not safe communication..come on we just had and are having a national debate about this very issue.

Yes people who profit from this are getting better at it...but it is not like you didn't tell them all of your own free will.

According to you a few comments ago people just had to stop using facebook. Stop acting like an expert with all the answers when you don't have the slightest clue.

Look using Facebook is a mater of choice...and how quickly does you mood change? Just have a change of meds did we?

I'm not an expert but it is pretty much common sense if you don't want your private information to be disseminated don't fucking disseminate it.

Ignoring that there's no such as choice. It's got nothing to do with what you share, that's how ignorant you are of this shit.

LMAO ...you put your private information on face book, get pissed because it is shared and I'm ignorant...wow.

look I'm old and even when we used paper and pencil...There was a rule don't write anything down you don't want somebody to read.

How the fuck did Facebook get the information..osmosis?

You make a conscious effort to enter your information...that is sharing. Now are you saying that Facebook Twitter, dating sites are necessary...that you have to enter the information? Well ya don't.

Try googling "facebook shadow profile," Mr Internet Expert. And most articles on the shadow profiles don't even acknowledge that they're tracking your website visitation behavior. Just like google and half the analytics companies out there are also doing.

The analytics companies are a problem. They mine information without notification and there are some things that you have to put online to do business online and that is a problem.

I am not an expert like I said before...but if you don't want it known don't put it online...I'm pretty sure that is common knowledge.

And you still don't get it.

enlighten me

I took you advise and googled it....

"I don't think it's as much about going analog as to limiting what goes online. "Facebook shadow profiles: a profile of you that you never created.

Oh, when did you google it, after dropping another uninformed comment?

Look at you, you're not even quoting the article, you went looking for the one guy saying something you agreed with and took that excerpt. Then next guy that replies even points out how impossible most of what he's asking is. Because it's not the stuff you're sharing.

And it's still not even the point of what this post is about. You are already in the maze regardless of whether or not you are not you are on facebook. You don't grasp that, you grasp how the maze works, you're not even acknowledging there's a maze.

You're not "not an expert" you're not even someone that should be expressing opinions on the subject beyond, "I need to learn more about this."

And you didn't say shit..still. you on the other hand are supposed to be an expert ..how about you share a little of that knowledge.

Or are you just going to recommend another book that still doesn't deal with the fact that if people didn't put their personal information on line there would be no problem.
My point is you allow the people access to your information and are surprised they use it for there personal gain...An I missing something? if so what?

Dude, it's not about sharing of personal information. It's that you are under constant surveillance and that you have no privacy. And as long as companies are gobbling that information up to use against you, your "free will" is a joke. I could recommend plenty of books on this topic, but you're not going to get it because you already think you're an expert at everything. Excuse me if I happen to think it takes more than consuming a 3000 word article to grasp concepts.

So you aren't going to comment. How did I know..because that is always your response...read this. I was asking our local expert I can read an new story anywhere.

." It's that you are under constant surveillance and that you have no privacy."

Well no shit. I do believe that was my point. If you post personal shit online you should expect it will get read..by more the the people you expect to. And that major corporations will screw anybody and everybody if they think they can can make a dime.

I asked you if there was anything I missed...guess not.

Are you fucking high right now? It's not about what you put online. It's by being online. By purchasing things with a credit card. By having a driving license. You can't escape it and you can't control it because its society as a whole that approves of it. Your only hope is to hide in the woods or start a movement to reclaim privacy, which isn't going to happen because of people like you going on about shit they don't understand.

First, it needs to know it's in a maze.

Well it may be hard to tell now but it was obvious when you locked yourself off from dissenting opinions. And it would be hard not to know it even in the protective bubble that not all of what you are being fed is real information.

And unless people have given up network TV it will be made even more obvious very soon.

Stupid mice! Jerks!

I don't FB because I wish to not be revealed, to not have my words and history held up for others to see as ME when I wish obscurity, privacy, shielding. Requiring a single identity is totalitarian. Zuck won't own me.