Sell yourself down the river
http://www.insidefacebook.com/2011/09/22/what-f8-means-for-advertisers-the-ability-to-target-users-based-on-media-consumption/
An added bonus of users sharing more about themselves and their behavior is that Facebook gain more data to power ad targeting. Facebook’s profile redesign last year made biographical data and interests more prominent, encouraging users to provide more information about who they are and what types of media and companies they care about.
.. And now you can muck about with who sees what about who else, which groups of friends get to see items about what event or media object and what information you care to see from other people.
I would imagine that a 'shag family tree' would be a fairly trivial visualisation of your social graph.
Or, I don't know, given the data above it would be fairly simple to work out who the 'taste makers' or 'thought leaders' in any particular social grouping might be and give them shiny toys to play with. Like the purchase of New Rocks, togs from Cyberdog or whatever the hell it is that clubby-club people clamber into these days.
If you think Google and FB aren't carefully analysing the way your circles or FB-equivalent-thereof are constructed in order to work out more about you than you might otherwise let on, then I, oh, what's the use? I get to be the boggle-eyed paranoid, I guess.
As one might gather from the way I run this LJ, there's very little about the state of my life that I don't feel comfortable about strip-mining for a post. There are no secrets on the Internet, after all. It would therefore be hypocritical of me to get too much of a monk on about the way privacy isn't. And, really, if any potential employer digs through this and uses it as an excuse to give me a wide berth, then they're going to be a mob of greedhead negative-vibe merchants who I'm going to fail to get on with on a cellular level.
On the other hand, The Tabs love a full-service FB profile and will surely pull out the drunkest and/or most duck-faced picture they can find in your gallery to illustrate their article about you being some uncloseted rubber-bothering sex and drug pervert and therefore clearly guilty of whatever crime they can imagine. See, for instance, Rebecca Leighton and Chris Jefferies who appeared to be guilty of liking a pint and being slightly stranger than Paul Dacre could stand.
But of course if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.
Also, it strikes me that knowing the default voicemail p/w on a range of mobile telephones is utterly amateur stuff when compared to the data given away by FBG+ - and why on earth bother with a large database of 'terror' suspects when you can get the little dears to fill it in for free?
An added bonus of users sharing more about themselves and their behavior is that Facebook gain more data to power ad targeting. Facebook’s profile redesign last year made biographical data and interests more prominent, encouraging users to provide more information about who they are and what types of media and companies they care about.
.. And now you can muck about with who sees what about who else, which groups of friends get to see items about what event or media object and what information you care to see from other people.
I would imagine that a 'shag family tree' would be a fairly trivial visualisation of your social graph.
Or, I don't know, given the data above it would be fairly simple to work out who the 'taste makers' or 'thought leaders' in any particular social grouping might be and give them shiny toys to play with. Like the purchase of New Rocks, togs from Cyberdog or whatever the hell it is that clubby-club people clamber into these days.
If you think Google and FB aren't carefully analysing the way your circles or FB-equivalent-thereof are constructed in order to work out more about you than you might otherwise let on, then I, oh, what's the use? I get to be the boggle-eyed paranoid, I guess.
As one might gather from the way I run this LJ, there's very little about the state of my life that I don't feel comfortable about strip-mining for a post. There are no secrets on the Internet, after all. It would therefore be hypocritical of me to get too much of a monk on about the way privacy isn't. And, really, if any potential employer digs through this and uses it as an excuse to give me a wide berth, then they're going to be a mob of greedhead negative-vibe merchants who I'm going to fail to get on with on a cellular level.
On the other hand, The Tabs love a full-service FB profile and will surely pull out the drunkest and/or most duck-faced picture they can find in your gallery to illustrate their article about you being some uncloseted rubber-bothering sex and drug pervert and therefore clearly guilty of whatever crime they can imagine. See, for instance, Rebecca Leighton and Chris Jefferies who appeared to be guilty of liking a pint and being slightly stranger than Paul Dacre could stand.
But of course if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.
Also, it strikes me that knowing the default voicemail p/w on a range of mobile telephones is utterly amateur stuff when compared to the data given away by FBG+ - and why on earth bother with a large database of 'terror' suspects when you can get the little dears to fill it in for free?