(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

It looks like it didn't take long for them to get the hint. Facebook will now be improving their privacy controls and policy.

From the CNN article:

Tech blogger Robert Scoble... equated the privacy outrage to both Facebook's complicated privacy settings and the company's inability to communicate why users should share their private information with the public.

No kidding. Well now Mark Zuckerberg has admitted to making some mistakes and promises to do better. We'll see.

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

This is awesome:

I agree so much with this. Facebook is trying to become the only provider and replace the open Internet much like AOL back in the day. I have long objected to their practices and privacy issues as well as their technical and security flaws. It would be nice if they could make moves in the right direction and become a more ethical business since the idea has a lot of potential if used properly.

The problem is I just don't see that happening. Until then, you may want to reconsider being a part of the system…just be careful when you do quit that you don't end up like this guy:

Stan tries to quit Facebook, Facebook resists

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

I found this pretty amusing:

The world needs a simple word or term that means "the act of creating deliberately confusing jargon and user-interfaces which trick your users into sharing more info about themselves than they really want to." Suggestions?

Although we didn't specifically mention Facebook in our question, … suggestions included "Zuckermining", "Infozuckering", "Zuckerpunch" and plenty of other variations on the name of Facebook's Founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg. Others suggested words like "Facebooking", "Facebaiting", and "Facebunk".

In the end, they went with a suggestion of "Evil Interfaces" which refers to any user interface that is designed to trick people out of their data or make them do something they don't want to do. Check out the source article for examples of the kind of "Evil Interfaces" they're talking about.

And one more thing before we go:

OK, perhaps the word "evil" is a little strong. There's no doubt that bad user-interfaces can come from good intentions. Design is difficult, and accidents do happen. But when an accident coincidentally bolsters a company's business model at the expense of its users' rights, it begins to look suspicious. And when similar accidents happen over and over again in the same company, around the same issues, it's more than just coincidence. It's a sign something's seriously wrong.

Beautifully worded.

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

As justification for the complete jerk-move Facebook recently made that forced many people's private information into the public against their will (his included), Mark Zuckerberg claimed publicly that privacy is no longer the social norm:

I think that people can agree they don't like things like getting embarrassed, getting fired, or getting robbed by the things found in their Facebook page (each of which happened). Sadly, people experiment with getting involved with the Internet via Facebook and it takes something drastic for them to learn that they should be more careful about what they share.

Betcha never meant for that to be public

So Facebook is not exactly known for protecting people's privacy. Besides many grievous displays of poor security, they have only added decent privacy controls over time none of which matter because you can get to the pictures anyway and every installed Facebook app can get all your data too.

All that aside, assume that setting your privacy controls is still better than not setting them. Facebook pulled a real jerk move recently when it required all users when they first logged in for the day to make a decision about their privacy settings. You had to click to keep your current settings, but if you didn't, it would open your profile up using the new default settings.

Though it doesn't probably change anything in the long run, it's quite satisfying to know that Mark Zuckerberg, the founder and CEO of Facebook, fell prey to his own tactic.

In a bit of very interesting timing, Zuckerberg’s photos have been made public to the entire internet, mostly through a post from gossip blog Gawker, after Kashmir Hill at True/Slant discovered and reported that Zuckerberg was sharing photos with a wide circle — friends of friends — and his event calendar with everyone.

Serves him right.

Facebook did not immediately respond to a call seeking comment about whether Zuckerberg’s changes to his privacy settings were deliberate, leadership-by-example-style actions. But in a status update on his profile (pictured above), Zuckerberg says he sets most of his content open and “didn’t see a need to limit visibility of pics with my friends, family or my teddy bear :)”

Sure… He claims that he didn't mind that they were public and that he did it on purpose. Of course it wasn't proof positive that the settings changes are confusing and designed to nudge people out of their privacy into the public eye. Still, some would claim foul.

But why did Zuck suddenly decide to be less private than two months ago, when his settings were uber-private? You couldn’t even friend him before, and you certainly couldn’t see him shirtless..

The fact that Zuck drastically reduced his privacy settings makes me think the Facebook CEO did this accidentally, and now doesn’t want to change back for fear of the resulting PR disaster.

I wonder if Zuckerberg is regretting this move now. He can't go back towards privacy without making it seem that he's a hypocrite. Still, you have to wonder if he's going to start posting less information to his event calendar and photo albums than before since it's been forced for PR reasons to remain public.