when they realized just how much of their information was being collected and stored. I don't have a lot of applications on my profile, so I don't think I offer quite as much to the spiders/Big Brother as others do. Part of me would just delete my profile like some of my friends have done, but I have re-connected with high school and other extremely long lost friends that I wouldn't have been able to find otherwise. And I'm staying connected with them which is the other bonus. But reading that article was extraordinarily enlightening! And I will have to spend some time really thinking about what it means to have a profile on Facebook.
Thanks for posting that link!
misskate, Jan 14, 2008 @ 13:23

my bad.
misskate, Jan 14, 2008 @ 13:40

So Facebook is just a database of information that people voluntarily upload. The dangerous agencies the writer refers to already have access to our Gmails and Hotmails, our bank accounts (outside Switzerland) and creditcard statements... what's the fuss? I've been using facebook for a while, and I haven't noticed any more targeted advertising in my inbox. Either they're grossly ineffecient, or the evil record companies have subliminally told me which movies and music to download...
Cpt_Numpty, Jan 14, 2008 @ 17:06

The agencies that want to know who you are and what you do, know all they want to know already, they don't need facebook. It's been like this for ages.
DJ_Symcard, Jan 15, 2008 @ 22:14

Innovations are at the heart of social networking websites. They are means. And means are never at the root of "Big Brother" behavior.

For example, a stick is a means. A stick can be used to beat up people and other forms of violence. A stick can also be used to measure time... as our forefathers once did to build solar clocks. A stick can additionally be used to help hold a roof and provide shelter. A stick is a means... and means are never at the root of evil or good behavior.

Explosives can be tools of violence. Explosives are also means for construction, cleaner way to extract minerals and resource, emergency rescue attempts etc. Explosives are like any other means... and means are never at the root of evil or good behavior.

Innovations such as social networking sites are also means...

They may be means to bring together people who once knew each other and lost contact. They may be means to bring together friends who are yet to meet and are more likely to be happy learning from each other. They may be means to deliver helpful ad information to certain individuals. They may be means to discover that people with very different backgrounds, cultures, upbringing can be fascinatingly similar in their core beliefs and values. They may be means to help us question ourselves... and grow.

And like most means, social networking sites are a small yet potentially pleasant innovation. They are part of the bigger puzzle.

In my humble opinion, governments or social lobbies should not outlaw or discourage sticks, or explosives, or social networking sites, or any other means. Lets innovators and entrepreneurs passionately pursue free thought and creation of wealth. What we must outlaw and discourage is the misuse and abuse of means.

While I respect the Guardian essay and find it thought provoking, I am not persuaded or convinced by it. I continue to believe that free markets and passionate entrepreneurs have an essential role in the freedoms that makes the pursuit of life and happiness possible... and so beautiful.

With best regards, Colorado
colorado, Jan 24, 2008 @ 11:45

... you owe the bank EUR 4.9 billion !

'His [Jerome Kerviel] photo from SocGen's internal system showed him as a serious young man with a furrowed brow. When the news broke yesterday morning, he had 11 friends on Facebook who steadily deserted his page throughout the day.'

OK OK, I confess I haven't paid my electricity bill this month. Lets see which of my Glocal friends deserts me first :)

Rogue Bill Payer

SlogFester, Jan 25, 2008 @ 11:18

Interesting article.

Thanks for posting it.
Huck, Apr 12, 2008 @ 15:16

Thanks Epale, interesting article indeed. I missed it when it was posted, and now it came up again.

Re the article's content: 

Utimatly, I think the monster of info privacy depends on who you trust. For example, as someone else mentioned on this thread, most people reveal a ton about themselves when using Gmail / Hotmail / etc. If Gmail decide to abuse our info, most of us would be royally screwed. Yet most of us keep using the free email service, cos we trust that Google will not abuse it. With Facebook, I think the issue is that they screwed up a few times on privacy (latest one being with Beacon), and they have a CEO who was taken to court for allegadly 'stealing' the facebook idea, so some people are starting to question if they can trust the people behind it.
Nir Ofek, Apr 13, 2008 @ 20:38

Oof, that Peter Thiel sounds like a nasty piece of work, doesn't he?



I've got to ask a question about this: has anybody ever read a spam email, gone to the website it's suggesting, and payed money for the product or service that they're advertising?



This is one of the things that's baffled me for my entire life. People buy stuff because of advertising, right? They must do, otherwise by now there would be no advertising. But I can't think of a single product I've ever bought on the grounds of it being advertised. I don't remember ever seeing am advert and having said 'oooh, gotta get me one of those'. Which people think like that? Is it just much more subtle?



Surely the targeted advertising to which they are referring must also pale in comparison the the random spam that slips daily, no hourly, through our filters. You don't read the ads-provided-by-Google do you? Let alone click on them? How can that actually make money for anybody? Would someone like to explain to me how advertising actually works?



Also: isn't the whole CIA-can-look-at-your-Facebook-history also just a minor diversion when compared against (at least my understanding of) the US Patriot Act? I.e. the various agencies only have to ask to get all your email and cellphone records?



Finally, what's happened to the old store loyalty card comparison that people used to draw? People give away this kind of information all the time with these things. They've got your demographics; your age your gender your profession and a proxy on your salary; your address; marital status; kids; and so on... but in reality don't they have something with more potential power than which character from Scrubs you most resemble: what you actually spend your money on. What products you buy and how that changes over time.



Finally finally, there's a certain irony in discussing this on Glocals. When some faceless multinational puts in a bid that the admins can't refuse, you'll find your inboxes full of adverts for skiing and salsa lessons. Everybody's got their price -- what makes you think they'll look after your privacy when when it's offered against early retirement on megaCHF?
hayes, Apr 15, 2008 @ 19:27

Hey Hayes,

You raise a few interesting points:

1. Does advertising work on consumers?

You bet, and speak to most brand managers on consumer products, who will show you how their sales jump when they air TV ads. Sometimes the ads work on you in a direct way ("hey, that product is just what I needed"), but most times they work on you without you even knowing it...Very few people actually think they bought product X because it was advertised. But when you dig further, you see that the same people - deep down and often without realising it - remember something good about product X because they saw it on TV.

2. Does spam advertising really work?

I'm guessing it does, or we wouldn't be getting all this spam. I read somewhere that a typical mass-spam-emailing is made up of 2 million addresses. The spammers need just 0.01% of people to make a purchase, in order to make money...By the way, the penus enlargement pills don't work. I know this cos...hmmm....a friend told me.

3. Privacy issues

I'd seperate between Facebook (or glocals or any other site) showing you targetted ads (which are shown to an aggregate of people), and between these sites giving your info to 3rd parties. The first, atleast in my view, may be annoying - but is not a breach of privacy (especially if you're told you may see advertising, when you join). The 2nd, is a serious breach of trust and privacy.

4. A big multinational putting a huge advertising budget on glocals

Pls God - make it happen soon!!! :) We already have some advertising on the glocals site, and sometimes on our newsletter. But a big multinational has yet to put that huge big advertising budget on us. When it happens, I hope it won't be for penus enlargement pills...:D  

Nir 
Nir Ofek, Apr 15, 2008 @ 19:45

Sure - I figured that it must be working... it's just I really can't see the mechanism. I've spent a bit of time in the last hour looking for something in the apartment that I can say I bought because of advertising.



The best I can do is come up with books that I've bought from Amazon after looking at the 'other people that bought this also bought these'.



I defend the fact I'm a Mac user with the statement that I can't easily get away with any other system. The fact that Macs are cool is irrelevant...



Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that advertising doesn't work on me; far from it. I guess it must be so very subtle that I can't see it, even when I look for it. I'm just astounded by how much money flows through the whole sickening system.

hayes, Apr 15, 2008 @ 20:04

I'd suggest you read this very funny book related to advertising:

Yes, advertising does work and it's eating up our lives!

For those who read French :)
Carol A, Apr 15, 2008 @ 20:38

Indeed. I've also been trying to think of some kind of brand-loyalty that I might have. But it's equally difficult. Here I'm influenced quite strongly by the whichever-is-cheapest principle.
hayes, Apr 15, 2008 @ 20:45

[quote][b]Villarsvilla (15/04/2008)[/b][hr]

The only true thing about mass advertising in general and TV advertising in particular is what Mr. Wanamaker said about it close to one hundred years ago.[/quote]

Villarsvilla: what did Mr. Wanamaker say, and who was he?
Nir Ofek, Apr 16, 2008 @ 12:51

Yes. Well done. Advertising theory, courtesy of Eddie Izzard. In the 1950's advertising was all 'come on! come over here and buy this! here it is'. Nowadays it's all 'those two people like it.... and they're shagging'.



Somewhat to my amusement, when I first tried to reply, the site was down. The error-message was good enough to back up the sex-sells point, so I copied it:



[quote]

Sorry folks - A ton of people logged in at once to see the Spring Fever photos, and our site crashed. We're working on it, and will be back in a few minutes.

[/quote]



Yes, the thread has generated a lot of views. The word 'twitter' seems to have around 80% the advertising potential as the word 'topless'. Who would have thought!? The Topless @ spring party Member Activity attracted LESS views than the April birthday drinks. Well done for playing on people's need for water! Should have chosen water at the spring party; that would have got people looking.
hayes, Apr 16, 2008 @ 16:49

I didn't say that it didn't.
hayes, Apr 16, 2008 @ 17:00

It appears to have worked so well, in fact, that the mere mention of topless photographs crashed an entire dating site.
hayes, Apr 16, 2008 @ 17:02

Sex sells indeed, but not all advertisers use 'sex' to sell. For example, check out the below ad for milk. The advertisers clearly focus on showing the wholesom advantages of drinking mild, without showing even 1 piece of x-rated body part!

Nir Ofek, Apr 16, 2008 @ 17:06

[quote]

isa413 (16/04/2008)



The use of the word *TOPLESS* at Spring Party, generated over one thousand views, without this Word, I doubt if there would have been so many views. Brilliant idea !!![/quote]



Thank you ))

the topless team (extremal and Syd_Brown)
extremal, Apr 16, 2008 @ 17:18

[quote]

hayes (16/04/2008)



It appears to have worked so well, in fact, that the mere mention of topless photographs crashed an entire dating site.[/quote]



I'd rather put it this way - "the mere mention of topless photographer crashed..." )))
extremal, Apr 16, 2008 @ 17:20

Dammit! Whipped by statistics again!
hayes, Apr 16, 2008 @ 18:25

[quote]

18 views in 7 minutes not bad - we shall see ![/quote]



OMFG, a hit competition. I am actually lost for words*.



*the obvious gag is not necessary, thankyou.

hayes, Apr 16, 2008 @ 18:53