• Search for:

• Categories

  • Education
  • General
  • iPhone
  • Jwill
  • Link
  • Opinion
  • Politics
  • Public Transportation
  • Social Networking
  • Sports
  • Tech

• Recent Posts

  • No Lesbians Here
  • Cutting Junk Food from Schools
  • Oh, Budget Cuts
  • What Was That “i” Thing, Anyway?
  • Central Falls High in R.I. Starting Fresh?

• Archives

  Select Month March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006

• Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

Source: Wired.com
Read Article

Using a simple scraping tool, a marketer could then turn a list of e-mail addresses into a rich, full-fledged set of markeying profiles, with names, pictures, ages, locations, interests, photos, wall posts, affiliations and names of your friends, depending on how users have their profiles set. Run a few algorithms on that data and you can start to make inferences about race, income, sexual orientation and interests.

While that information isn’t available for all users, Facebook changed its privacy settings in early December so that certain information can’t be made private, including one’s name, current city, profile picture, gender, networks and friend list (the latter can be somewhat hidden from public view).

Anyone with your e-mail address can harvest that information, the company admits.

This doesn’t sound good. I’m still on Facebook and I really do need to cut it from my list of social networks. Problem is, I do still use it for promoting events for my residents and keeping in touch with a few of them. But, I digress. Definitely give this report a read.

A silly advertisement I found on Facebook:

Source: BU Today
Read Article

This article, written by BU College of Communications sophomore Brendan Gauthier, is a good insight into reasons why one would want to leave Facebook. I myself have been a victim of constantly clicking on the Facebook link on my bookmark toolbar and looking through photos and seeing what everyone else is doing. One day, it donned on me. I asked myself, “Why am I doing this? How much time am I wasting on Facebook?” I decided to do something about it and make a bold move. I removed Facebook not only from my bookmarks toolbar, but also from my bookmarks menu in general. The only ways I can get to Facebook now are by typing in the url (unfortunately it’s still a bookmark so merely typing “f” may do it) or by going to my bookmarks panel. Even though it still is in relatively easy access, it is nowhere near as convenient to go to it. Thus, I surf Facebook much less than I used to now.

I relate to some things that Gauthier says. For example, a chord immediately struck with me when he asked “why was I ‘friends’ with more than 300 people?“ and when he said ”I didn’t even know this person, yet I could tell you what she did last weekend.“ Really, Facebook ”friends“ are not friends in any version of the word. Sure, a few of them are; you know, your *real* friends. But everyone else is just socially connected to you just because you work for the same organization or go to the same school. And let’s face it: on a collegiate level, going to the same school don’t mean squat. I’ve always wondered why I’m friends with hundreds of people I don’t talk to. I’d love to cut them all from my list sometimes but then they get so insulted or offended. Why? It’s not like we talk anyway. I want to straight up deactivate my account, but I’m a little scared of the repercussions it may cause. I’d have one less way to keep in touch with people. But then again, aren’t e-mail, IM, and text messaging enough forms of contact? Why do I need another one? When I write on my blog, why can’t people just read it from here and not read it on Facebook if I post it there? I used to change my status to point out that I had a new blog post (whether it be here or on my poem blog), but I eventually stopped. The real, true readers will follow my blog, if they care enough.

Gauthier mentions that his withdrawal from Facebook has promoted to his becoming a New York Times junkie. I applaud that. I wonder if the lack of Facebook in my life now has allowed me to post more on both of my blogs (let’s face it: during the semesters I usually churn out almost nothing). I’m almost at the point of completely removing Facebook from my life. I would just need to press the deactivate button. It’s not helping my life in many ways socially, and people get to see things I don’t necessarily want them to see. So what’s the point?

Make sure you check out Gauthier’s take — it’s very well written and it’ll make you think.

About a week or so ago, Facebook’s “Online Now” page had a little yellow tag that said the page would be moving to the chat area. With this change, users can now see who’s online from any page while on the site. There’s one catch, though: you have to be logged into chat. I have seen many a post of discontent about the chat feature of Facebook, as well as discontent about the “Online Now” section moving to the chat area. The main issue with this incorporation is that it forces you to activate Facebook Chat. I don’t know if they did this to get us to turn it on or not, but it’s still a bit iffy. I personally don’t mind turning it on, but there are quite a few people that will mind. The change is good overall, but what it needs is to be independent of the chat feature. If you’re offline from chat, you should still be able to see who’s online. Also, I can’t get to the Facebook pages of people who are online by clicking on their name anymore; it opens a chat window instead. I like that it’s on every page now, though.

I overall appreciate the change but it can be a bit better.

Facebook’s profiles have less room for style modifications than Myspace’s profiles do. I find this to be a good thing because it keeps a sense of uniformity on the site and keeps the interface clean. I felt a bit iffy about the appearance of Facebook applications. While I do like a few of them (such as Weekly Schedule), I heavily disapprove of most. Some applications ask that you invite a certain number of friends before you get results, and some seem relatively pointless. Most annoying, however, is when users have a large number of applications on their profile, pushing down the wall and increasing the height of the page. The more I have to scroll down your page, the less likely I am to post on your wall.

My main point for this post, however, is about coloring Facebook’s profiles. I was invited to a group called something like “Official Petition for Colored Profiles on Facebook” and I very quickly rejected it. First of all, there’s more than one “official” group for them, and more than one “official” group against them. I don’t know who gave the group creators the right to throw around the word “official”. But, more importantly, I don’t support colored profiles. If Facebook presented the option to throw a hue in on your profile that every user would see, Facebook would lose its uniformity. You would be going from a standard blue to a red to a pink to a lime green. Also, I don’t think it’s good to trust some users’ color choices. Some may use a background color that makes the site unreadable, and if they do, people that use Facebook may see it as disgusting and not want to use it (I don’t use MySpace because I find many of the profiles ugly, and I guarantee you I’m not the only person that thinks that). I think it’s best that Facebook stays the blue it is and keeps the same layout. That’s why I much prefer Facebook over Myspace.

Next Page →