Since I am in the middle of an amount of articles about Facebook and privacy, let's include this one to the collection :-).
The ever again strking aspect of this type of debate seems to me that Facebook is claimed by users (and critics) to make it the service they would like it to be. Don't get me wrong: I do fully subscribe to the fact that there are critics to the model, and am glad the debates don't slow down because I think it is important for deep thinking about technology and human interaction. But somehow it seems important to recall from time to time that we are talking here about a company, not a public service, with a vision, that we may or may not share.
Another aspect that strikes me is that the critics are mainly "auto-centered": concerned with what other will or may not see of them. Very few stress the fact that human (inter-)action serves (different) purposes and that we do need the other(s) to react to us. Disclosure on whatever scale is important with regards to the purposes of the action. The stress on"disclosure control" may obscure the expected purposes that everyone has.
"This is perhaps the most striking example of Facebook’s utter failure to understand how privacy works. I’ll grant that it is easier to find people if this information is public. And I’ll grant that many people will have a “less satisfying experience” if they don’t post photos or make connections. But, again, people used to have that choice. They could choose what to post to their profile and who can access it — they had control.
Now, it is all public. And if you have a problem with that, Facebook’s only response is essentially “don’t share it”.
To Facebook, privacy and control of information is a binary: either you share it with everyone, or you don’t share it at all. There’s no longer any space between these two poles, no way to control how these pieces of personal information are visible."