Students and universities are up in arms about Facebook's new privacy settings - but whatever for?
Facebook, the English-speaking world's trendiest social network, announced it would make "limited public search listings" available to people not registered with the site.
Members of the general public using popular search engines like Google will now be able to browse the offerings of those Facebook members - <a href=" http://blogs.theguardian.com/organgrinder/2007/09/facebook_targetting_60m_us"
ers.html">there are more than 5.2 million participants in the UK alone - who don't choose to privatise their personal settings.
So far, so uncontroversial. The three-year-old network, after all, is nothing if not a lonely hearts club writ large, existing primarily for the benefit of social exhibitionists. It was the brainchild of a Harvard graduate, set up for the most part on behalf of poor sods lacking the wherewithal to forge friendships through the traditional channels of human interaction, shared experience and mental effort. Many of its users would doubtless welcome a wider audience - and those who wouldn't always have the choice not to play along.
So one might suppose. But not since last year's wild rumours of Facebook being a front for the CIA has such a seemingly innocuous development on the forum attracted such an outpouring of condemnation in universities.
According to <a href="http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/2007/09/17/editorial__new_facebook_f"
eatures_endanger_privacy">one typical student editorial offering, published in the Collegiate Times, the move "has many students up in arms, upset about what they feel are blatant violations of privacy and safety" and now feeling "weary of Facebook and untrusting of Facebook management".
Echoing <a href=" http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=623424&category=REGI"
ON&newsdate=9/20/2007">similar comment posted elsewhere, the leader writer concludes:
"The recent decision to allow nonusers to search public Facebook information was one made in the best interest of the company, not us as its members.
"Those who do not want their personal information accessed through search engines are encouraged to protect themselves and their privacy by utilizing... a variety of privacy options that, just like the rest of the site, aren't as simple as they used to be."
Let's see if we have this right. An individual decides to sign up for a global social network. Photographs are posted, vital statistics shared. Email alerts are activated ("Joe Lunchbox has added a new hip-hop album to his list of musical favourites"). And privacy is guaranteed if the user wants it.
Hmm. As one of the relatively few sensible contributors to an online academic forum <a href=" http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/2387/students-fret-over-facebooks-"
public-listings#comment">asked this week, are these critics not literate?
"Maybe it's time to educate on basic literacy. I mean the WWW means "World Wide Web" which means that anything posted on it is "World Wide". It's amazing to me how many students (and the general population) don't understand this simple concept. I agree wholeheartedly with the need to teach discretion. Possibly a lesson on how posting something embarrassing online and expecting privacy is like streaking through the homecoming parade and getting upset that somebody saw it."
Indeed. Perhaps instead of getting a Facebook, some users need to get a life.
