Skip to main content

View Diary: Licensed to share (61 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Anonymity in the public square is sacred (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eataTREE, YucatanMan, lotlizard

    I also work in IT, and help manage our CRM, so I can understand where you're coming from.

    BUT

    Anonymity in the public square must be sacred. If you want to self-identify, that's fine. Many people do. If you don't want to you shouldn't have to.

    What would happen to political discourse if EVERY PERSON needed to be run through a social security check before that discourse could take place? What would YOU say if you knew the government was watching?

    It's true, FB is mostly stoopid pictures of cats doing stoopid things and people talking about the hangovers from the night before.

    But it's a dangerous precedent. Let alone the risks involved for actually storing and maintaining data like social security and driver license info.

    What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

    by equern on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:38:11 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Okay, sure... (0+ / 0-)

      ...but Facebook isn't the "public square", it's private property. (Private property with incredibly high maintenance and upkeep costs, as I mentioned.) Admittance is therefore on the basis that you identify yourself to them so that they know you are a real person for the purpose of their advertising stats.

      Either advertisers pay, in which case Facebook has to be able to distinguish between a 42-year old male interested in automobile purchases and the account of Fluffy The Dog; or you pay up front. And as nobody wants to choose the latter, they are by default choosing the former.

      Visit Lacking All Conviction, your patch of grey on those too-sunny days.

      by eataTREE on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:10:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site