[Telegraph] Facebook forces Timeline onto users by August 8 - Page 16

Perhaps there's something i changed in my profile some time ago then. Might have to tinker with that. I prefer as many replies as possible all on one page.

I like some things about Timeline, but it seems very cluttered and clunky at times.

The stock setting has a small amount of replies per page.

I was not crazy about the new timeline either, but after a while of trying it out it grew on me. I think with time everybody will come to like it. It's not really that bad.

If you get handed a rancid sandwich, don't whine about it. Just don't eat it. It's that simple. You don't like it, don't use it. The information that Facebook uses is clearly outlined in your privacy policy. If you are dumb enough to accept it, and post stuff you don't want others to see, or not securing your information, then it's your own fault. What's the harm in Facebook? If your information gets out, it's your own fault for making it public.

Let's say someone puts up a bulletin board in your neighborhood that everyone puts fun tidbits on. This board is public. It's basic. You know the public can see it, but currently only the neighbors care to look at it. Let's say someone tells someone on the other side of town what you put on there, let's say it wasn't meant for their eyes. It's your own fault for making it public. The board is just a board. Let's say they make more of these boards and they are synced across town. You have the option to delete your content. What are you going to do about it? Whine, of course.

Tell me how much you pay for Facebook.
Tell me if you post anything on facebook you don't want everyone to see. Last I checked I didn't pay for anything, any way shape or form. My use doesn't effect my personal wellbeing. Just be smart online. Geeze.
Edited by SIMPSONATOR - 8/6/12 at 1:25pm

Ok lets work with this terribly inadequate analogy some more. If you see others eating it and you realize it is rancid - you stay quiet?

It is fairly large consensus that terms of service, etc are widely ignored by most people. Justifying shady actions with it is a joke.

Sure, just like it would be my fault for eating the sandwich, and the same reason I don't have a Facebook profile, I'm no fool. But plenty of other people are, they don't realize the sandwich is bad and I'm not a complete misanthrope so I'm going to point out that their sandwich is bad, that their boss is reading their neighborhood board and that the sandwich man and board owner are getting filthy rich by telling everyone what they use to communicate in their social circles.

I paid them with everything I ever posted, which they now own. The second question can't be answered without a context. I don't think I have, but then I don't know why everyone is looking now do I?

Look I'm not paranoid, I'm practical. I don't have a need for Facebook to communicate with my people and their actions speak very clearly to things that I can hook into life experiences with real people and real themes or patterns. It might never be an issue for most people, just like a lot of people drive drunk but never get into an accident. It doesn't make it a prudent idea given the cost and benefit of the arrangement based on your perception of risk.

And before someone tries, I'm not equating using Facebook to driving drunk - it is an illustration of perceived risk.
Edited by _02 - 8/6/12 at 1:51pm

I've seen coworkers fired for what they posted on facebook. I've also seen bosses crack down on workers for what they saw posted on facebook. I've also had to throw out applications because the applicant didn't have a facebook and my boss couldn't judge their character.

Facebook is your corporate life, not your private life.

Even worse is if you link your job to your page. Then everything you post represents your company and you will be watched.

1) Not really, if you have 3-4 computers what is really the chances of every single one dying at once? Normal backups are even easier, or dropbox, google drive, etc. Facebook is a horrible way of archiving photos overall.

2) And facebook can still see all of that, and have proven to use it; I'd personally pick a service that isn't as likely to use my photos for purposes other than what I want. You can still access hidden images, even on blocked accounts, if you have the URL of the image jpg.

Except whenever I load up Facebook, I see these things called ads; apparently they give them some money for every pageview I give them, so no, while I'm not paying them directly I am giving them money. They also get money from selling the information I've given (Which is totally and completely real ) them to certain companies, it's free in terms of money for me but certainly I do pay their bills simply by being a member and viewing.

And if, like me, you've whitelisted sites without annoying ads or sites that you view very often? I'm not paying, no, but I am certainly not getting the service for free, just very little.

While this is true it's not really what he's still saying, want a test? Open a new Facebook, Amazon and eBay account with the same email, only talk about AMD laptops from say, HP on Facebook and like/comment on the relevant pages, within a year you'll have plenty of emails from Amazon and eBay (On an otherwise inactive account) about HP laptops running AMD chips, this is due to Facebook selling your information to other companies in order to make more money. This is how you pay for Facebook, even if you block ads; it's only the users who have a separate Facebook email, etc who don't really pay anything for Facebook.

You sure about that? I've still been able to recently.