I was at a party once with Facebook employees and they were telling stories about how they would spy on who visited who's profiles. They thought it was so funny, they could "tell" who had a crush on who. I deleted my account as soon as I got home. Vile company.
After getting scammed on Facebook Marketplace, I look at the profiles of sellers, particularly if they don’t have much in way of reviews. That seems more prudent than creepy to me. I’m not stalking anyone and I’m not looking to be their friend.
Is there a better way to do seller verification? It does seem like an information leak to me. Craigslist and eBay don’t share my identification as a potential buyer. I don’t love the marketplace being tied to a social network, but it’s what many people are using these days.
sure, showing up on suggested friends is weird. the way linkedin does it makes more sense: "these people have viewed your profile". i was picking up on hiding it outright. while that may be justified in your case, it's also reasonable to let them know.
the only people i would really not want to find out that i look at their profile are spammers and scammers (oh, and stalkers).
so both sides have a fair reason. so guess, if you can, choose the social network that works the way you prefer.
sneaking up to someones house and peeping in theier windows is creepy. or just camping out in front of their window from the street legally.
but that person had to put their info into the website, themselves, by choice, and then chose to let their privacy settings be such that others can view them.
if you pin your photo up to a cork board, don't be surprised if people see it
but the reverse is true too. if you look someone up, don't be surprised if they find out. really, i don't see how that would be a big deal.
with more and more illegitimate tracking being done, informing those being tracked seems a benefit, not a drawback.
there is a difference however between one institution tracking who all the people are that i am looking at, vs the person i am looking at finding out for themselves who is looking at them.
what i understood is that "showing up on their suggested friends list is creepy, and it's an information leak". the way i read that is that they would prefer not to show when someone visited their profile. and that's what i consider creepy.
Wouldn't surprise me. Everyone clutches their pearls and hits the downvote button as soon as you mention the Zucc quote, but has there really been any evidence that the company culture has matured away from "They Trust Me - Dumb fucks"?
Extremely doubtful to have occurred in the past 10 years. It's pretty much impossible to access anything on the graph without a business reason and managerial approval.
> found Meta to have inadvertently stored certain passwords of social media users on its internal systems without encryption, and fined it €91m (£75m)
WTF? I thought that on 2010 already people were diligent enough to avoid even sending the password and instead just hashed it locally before even sending it.
42 comments
Is there a better way to do seller verification? It does seem like an information leak to me. Craigslist and eBay don’t share my identification as a potential buyer. I don’t love the marketplace being tied to a social network, but it’s what many people are using these days.
the only people i would really not want to find out that i look at their profile are spammers and scammers (oh, and stalkers).
so both sides have a fair reason. so guess, if you can, choose the social network that works the way you prefer.
but that person had to put their info into the website, themselves, by choice, and then chose to let their privacy settings be such that others can view them.
if you pin your photo up to a cork board, don't be surprised if people see it
with more and more illegitimate tracking being done, informing those being tracked seems a benefit, not a drawback.
there is a difference however between one institution tracking who all the people are that i am looking at, vs the person i am looking at finding out for themselves who is looking at them.
0 trust in that company, 0 trust in its employees.
> found Meta to have inadvertently stored certain passwords of social media users on its internal systems without encryption, and fined it €91m (£75m)
WTF? I thought that on 2010 already people were diligent enough to avoid even sending the password and instead just hashed it locally before even sending it.