The subtle impact of Facebook Graph Search is that when you share openly, you share for the benefit of mankind. And when you don't, or share to just a few people, you're robbing the world of your knowledge, recommendations, and content. The question for each of us now is whether we prioritize our contribution or our privacy.
in the corner of a room filled with people, you wouldn't go naked in the hopes that nobody sees you. online the same principle applies. if you don't want others to find your stuff, don't put it online.
Theo Priestley: http://bpmredux.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/big-data-privacy-what-the-v-for-vendetta-speech-would-look-like-today/
I will be sharing but on G+, not FB. BTW Techcrunch: how about adding a G+ button for commenting?
Brian Bowman: Josh - I really liked the article and your concept of "a quite action" that doesn't blast my friends with obtuse information most will find useless. I think Graph Search is transformational for Facebook but there may be an additional challenge, assuming I am not unique, my social graph is riddled by loose connections that I don’t engage with (old co-workers, high school / college friends, etc). It is a real pain to unfriend someone (a multi-step process) and there is no easy way to do this in bulk.
So, I find myself curating the information I post to limit exposure of intimate details or potential negative future impacts. If Facebook pushes people to “share everything” without easy-to-use friend-filtering to limit exposure, it may drive people to more intimate (path) or anonymous social networks where they can express themselves without judgment.
Coercing someone to open up their data and take a more open stance on privacy by insinuating they are selfish and "robbing the world" if they do not concede is utterly ridiculous. The only thing Graph Search was developed for was additional monetization of the valuable data set that Facebook already has. Convincing people to relax their privacy makes this revenue generating tool more effective.
You aren't taking anything away from humankind by deciding to keep your cat pictures and personal opinions on restaurants private. You are drawing a line as to how far you are willing to let an organization push you for use of your private data for financial gain.
Brian Amerige: It's weird when journalists use philosophical terms. For the sake of correctness:
I don't think people post reviews publicly because they're altruistic. Helping make a great place popular is in your own interest in countless ways. And there's certainly nothing selfless about writing a bad review of a shitty place.
Altruism would require people do these things at the expense of their own (long-term, holistic) interest, and that's simply not what's happening. And that's a good thing, because if you really understand what altruism is, you'd know that it's fucking evil. (And you'd probably go to more 1-star restaurants.)
Andrew Glidden: On the other hand, most Objectivists use "altruist" in the sense of *one* person (Comte). It's not a "philosophical" term. Language being what it is, it's probably more sensible to take a writer according to the writer's meaning, rather than arguing about the "real" meaning of a word.
Also, there are plenty of ways reviews are altruistic, even in your sense.
Rowan Staden: Francesca Lorry get a life!
Nick Cicero: Mission Dental is by my house ha.
Matt MacNaughton: I'm picking up what you're throwing down here, Josh. Graph Search will provide likes and shares with a new set of gravitas. I just had an amazing experience at the Dentist and all I need to do to help my families favorite tooth pulling practitioner sustain and build his business is to like his Facebook page!
I would be a cold hearted jerk to not give him this single click of a recommendation. Graph Search will empower this simple instrument of goodwill so your average Joe can have an even more direct way to help out his favorite local businesses than the "like" ever has afforded itself to date. Sounds like a brilliant way to build the Facebook empire to me.
Alex Fedotov: Paid promo. Which PR agency paid you, man? Just asking. I want to hire them for more noble causes.
Giovane Alexandre: JOSH: get a haircut.
wait until the SEO guys start spamming this...
Deepak Srinivasan: I don't most of the people wouldn't care about privacy because they want to be more popular and want to get a celebrity feel, Facebook has been abusing the privacy of its users right from its begining.
Joshua Vantard: Constine, your article's analogy is flawed and pretentiously written without attention to logic or facts. You could always share with 'Public' before. Privacy options in place for years allow us to chose what we share on Graph Search, as it already does on Newsfeed and Search.
Adam Calico: Looks like Facebook isn't the only company exploring new forms of revenue. This is just a BS advertorial...
Talking banana for iOS.
I am an adorable talking banana who loves to repeat everything you say in a funny voice. You will really enjoy my conversation with you.
Its like meh.. The services are developing under Facebook Graph search are already there in Google Local, But Still, Hope to see something much interesting as expressed!
Ranu Jain Gupta: I don't find anything wrong in this. Be it Google or Facebook, privacy is always a major issue in social media. If someone does not want to share, that should be fine too.
Here is what Facebook public policy manager Nicky Jackson Colaco said in an interview with VentureBeat - “No one can see anything that they wouldn’t have otherwise been able to see,”. “We don’t want people to be surprised. It’s really bad for them … and it’s bad for us.”.
Luis Mejia: It's simple... you don't want to lose your privacy? don't use the internet... All the privacy settings of every website are bullshit... Our data is already online, from many sources. We're all already in the cloud. Just Accept it...
Jessica Albert: That seems like a pretty tall order to fill but if they can pull it off (seriously skeptical) it would surely be impressive.
Guy Avigdor: Curious on what you would think on a somewhat similar search on the twitter graph by @twtrland : e.g. The people that @joshconstine talks to http://bit.ly/V7NBXP , geek girls from LA http://bit.ly/VjRmKB or people who are into cycling from SF http://bit.ly/XGtjFh...
Jonathan Kleiman: Perhaps there's some virtue to selfishness.
David Kearns: What do most people consider "private" when sharing on a social site? and then can you really be "social" if your not sharing something of value? That nice picture of your cat and what ya had for dinner, isn't exactly what I had in mind. I think that if people have any concerns at all, why bother posting anything? Why even go online and join a social site?
Lucas Aguilar: Basically you're so out if you're not in Facebook.
Rakshith Begane: I hope for the day when a new ad brodcasted says "Social is personal again".
Numa Duma: Feacesbook graph is perfect for charlatans, navel gazers, perverts and the feds. For your own good, only dump garbage into feacesbook that it is built for. dumping important data, or pictures, etc is to your own peril.Now is the time to delete your profile if you excitedly spewed your guts in it. and if you are still so zombified, the least you can do is to create a fake profile, with a doctored photoshop face off the internet then resume spewing your guts. Yes! feacesbook will thoroughly exploit any information you dump in it for money. They are a Corporation, not your sleazy pope.
Prakash Baniya: "Facebook Graph Search Makes Privacy Seem Selfish".
C'mmon man are u serious?
I am sure that user choose who can see his/her "Likes" on his timeline. So owner of timeline is still in-control not his/her friends.
Bryan Nagy: I think this will be an interesting tool, but it won't replace Google search. This is meant to see what your friends like and do, get recommendations, and meet new people. It's not about finding information, like what the largest river is, when a prior president's birthday was, etc. It is a neat idea, but it won't make people share more like Facebook is hoping.
Prakash Baniya: whaaattttttt!!!!
replacing @[104958162837:274:Google] search...keep on dreaming.
This makes me so glad I killed at least half of my Facebook accounts. Now I just have to figure out which ones are left from my Friend Train days. Where it wasn't about having one legitimate friend, but numerous friends who weren't real to gift you in games and so you could claim to have the most friends on FB!
I haven't logged into my regular family FB account in ages, because I know who really owns us on FB and it's not who we think. FB sells us all out every chance they get and feed this bullcrude stories about sharing with mankind. When in reality it's all about fattening their pockets. Don't kid yourselves..... Facebook does absolutely nothing for YOUR benefit w/o having their own at heart. That's if they had a heart. They are a Corporate Entity w/o a conscience!
Brad Reason: I have always posted public things onto the Internet and onto Facebook. I welcome facebook search.
Ryan Richardson: Why this has to be a black and white thing I will never know.
(Unfortunately this is something I feel strongly about so there is some strong language which is very rare when I'm taking part in an intelligent debate however instead of editing them out I'd rather just edit in that when it comes to privacy I feel very strongly. This is OUR personal space you're invading and for me the thought of having this invaded in the sneaky, slimy way that corporate giants seem to find acceptable just makes me almost verbally abusive and outright angry and to be quite honest I think that most people SHOULD feel this way which is why I'm going to leave it as it is.)
===Strong language ahead===
You can share knowledge, recommendations, commendations just fine - I don't have a problem with it. The problem lies in the fact that you're a bunch of greedy fucking cunts. It's not what I have to say that I want to keep private - it's the information you sell to your partners and clients for your own agenda that just plain fucking PISSES me off. What's worse is you default EVERY aspect of privacy to "Show the entire world" which is just plain intrusive and takes advantage of people that use it who are blissfully unaware that you're using their history and cookies to see everything they look at, and even find out everything about us.
Now when the world becomes more aware of your scheme you try to warp the problem that's under your nose you arrogant, obese, slimy, smarmy wanker CEO's of facebook and Google?
Not only that but more and more company's are forcing you to "like" them or "install an app" or "comment on their facebook". This is getting out of hand especially since you're enforcing that we don't set up fake / alias accounts to separate our real lives from our hobbies or online aliases.
If I was able to make a second account that I used as an alias and link it to my real one with the PROMISE that facebook would not use any information beyond what I placed on my alias, (under pain of a hefty fine if broken), then fine!! I could care less. I'd happily use the alias account to sign onto different blogs, marketing schemes and adverts just in the areas that interest me because I actually use these as an alternative way to know what's going on in the areas I personally find interesting. But you wont do that will you facebook? Not because it's too tricky or technically implausible (don't you dare give me that shit as an excuse I'm in the IT industry and know what's plausible and possible), The reason you'd never do it is because you can't keep that promise and you'd be fined and sued left right and center.
Until you're able to win peoples trust, you can go fuck yourselves until your bored of your wank stained guns of statistics.
Guilt tripping isn't going to work either, you're nothing more than a bully and there are some people that just don't give a fucking toss who you are and will speak freely of your many many flaws that you could improve but suggestions repeatedly fall on deaf ears.
Oh and in answer to your question - if I wanted my privacy breached every second of every day then fucking pay me for it you cunts. At least celebrities get money for putting up with this shit day in and day out.
Michael Hudak: wow a mind opener.
Jose Antonio Lopez Calvo: Me. Gustaría mucho tenerlo.
Mary Ray: This article surfaces great implications from a product and marketing standpoint. If you have an install base of nearly 1 billion users who have been 'trained' by your product to have certain behaviors and expectations, is it as easy as turning on a dime to retrain these individuals to embrace a different paradigm that fosters openly sharing with strangers outside one's own personally-selected social circle. Or is that like turning a battle ship into a storm? Given some of these comments, I'm thinking it's the latter.