[wingspan33]

Bob,

I expect that the motive is - EXCLUSIVITY. FaceBook membership may give a person the ability to create a "privileged club" type situation. Friends are allowed in, but others can only catch a slight glimpse of things.

Hmmmmm, . . . just asked Google the question and it led me to this link that helps explain FaceBook privacy settings - http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/faceb ... new/312299

Things get clearer when you understand the details. Much like the "real world", strangers know the least about you, acquaintances know a bit more, casual friends even more and close friends more still. Family members know the most. Seems like FaceBook gives members the ability to manage access to personal content in a similar way.

Nothing very sinister about that. That is, once you know how the system works. Not being a member, I knew that some FaceBook pages are completely blocked to "strangers" but others are (now, obviously) partially blocked, or totally open to non-members.

Hmmmm....

Why would an average Facebook member want to post something that would be viewable to all other Facebook members in the world, and yet NOT viewable by non-Facebook members? What would be their motive?

I can understand someone wanting to post for their friends only - regardless of Facebook membership. But I'll bet it's very very rare for an average Facebook member to want to post something viewable to all the millions of Facebook members and not to non-Facebook members.

Who would have a motive to use such a protection scheme?        . . .      Facebook?

[Bob Kuczewski]

Things get clearer when you understand the details.

Nothing very sinister about that.

Choice is fine, but the defaults will reveal their motives. Do you know if the defaults have a "Facebook only" bias?

Also, I didn't use the word "sinister". Please don't misquote me. There's a difference between sinister and monopolistic.

[wingspan33]

Rick,

I now get the "invite" reference you made earlier. Clearly you're a FaceBook member.

I happen to only know a bit about FaceBook. My sister is a member, as well as many other aunts, uncles and cousins. Friend requests, pokes, prods(?) and invitations are almost unknown to me (and, I expect, to BobK as well).

It may be handy to remember that some of us following a link to a FaceBook page won't be able to see what you see.

Too bad a direct link couldn't be made to that video of Wolfgang's.

[wingspan33]

Bob,

I didn't use "sinister" connected with anything you said. I actually consider the "commercial" aspect of FaceBook a little on the sinister side all on my own.

As I understand things, FaceBook keeps close track of its members' web activity (ads they may click on within a facebook page?). That helps them make LOTS of money - while playing up the more innocent "social media" and "friends" aspect of their business.

I don't see making tons of money on "helping" friends and family connect on the internet as a particularly moral thing to do. In fact, the more "friends" a FaceBook member recruits to FaceBook the better FaceBook becomes at making lots of $$$$$ off of people. I'd rather not be part of that.

However, I must note that all sorts of internet sites (particularly Search Engines) gather all sorts of information on those of us who move around on and use the web on a frequent basis. At least those businesses aren't profiting off the social concept of friendship. I see such businesses as making money in a more honest "business is business" kind of way. On the other hand, FaceBook's model of "friendship is business" is, to me, less moral and to some degree more sinister.

Having said all that, it makes complete sense, now that I think of it, that members of FaceBook may strongly prefer being able to block their personal content from the view of "strangers" while having the ability to allow "friends" (and family) to have open access to their more personal info.

Let's not forget the reason for bringing any of this up. It's because a FaceBook user decided to not let the general public see their radical, high speed hang gliding flight ending in a (less than safe) landing on a crowded public beach. (! ! !) Lots of skill involved, but I'm not so sure about the judgement side of things.

[Frank Colver]

I don't want to belong to Facebook so i often can't see things that refer me to the site.

Frank

[Rick Masters]

    I don't understand the "strategy" of deliberately denying access to media unless one registers on a hang gliding or paragliding site or forum. In no instance I have ever seen does the forum operator hold the rights to a flying video (aside from my own Comet Clones web, which was always wide open), so the purpose is clearly not to "protect" intellectual property rights. These videos are almost invariably posted to sites like YouTube and linked by the forum. So what is the purpose?
    It is simply a method to coerce visitors to join the forum and, in some cases, to hide from the public some incidents that could embarrass the sport (by showing how dangerous it is and/or how stupid some pilots are). Kudos to BobK, moderator of the U.S. Hawks forum, who does not stoop to this low level. Not holding information hostage also shows a higher level of respect to visitors and open discourse. How else can we determine what's going on.
    Of course, if one has something to hide, one hides it. Visit Oz Report, Paragliding Forum or HangGliding.org without logging in to get a taste.
    I do acknowledge the fact that Facebook creates genuine social circles that are reasonably closed to outsiders but this is for personal information and I have no criticism of this. It is actually quite brilliant. However, using Facebook as a personal social circle for an entire sport is counterproductive or disingenuous at best. At its worst, it shows someone has something to hide.

[Bill Cummings]

RGSA member, Mike E., and I don't have a BookFace page marker.
My niece once sent me a link to see her wedding pictures at BookFace but to view them I would have to answer a lot of NSA, CIA inspired personal data questions. The same with linkedin which won't allow me to unsubscribe with out confirming me being me with personal information.
The good news is if I forget my social security number I can Google it on the internet.

[Frank Colver]

Actually those questions are not government inspired, they are commerce inspired. The private web based companies often know more, and share more around the business circles, about the people who use their services than the government does. We have more to fear about our privacy from commercial companies, because they know so much more about us, than we do from our government's knowledge about us.

You have to live the life of a cave man now to have any privacy. What astounds me is that the younger generations don't seem to have a problem with this and don't care how much personal data is gathered by web based companies and with how much of it is sold around by those companies.

FC

[Bob Kuczewski]

The private web based companies often know more, and share more around the business circles, about the people who use their services than the government does. We have more to fear about our privacy from commercial companies, because they know so much more about us, than we do from our government's knowledge about us.

I agree with you Frank. The government is "presumably" a representative of the people. They "supposedly" act in a fair and impartial way. While that's not always true, at least that's what they're "supposed" to do.

Private industry doesn't even have to pretend to do things in anyone's interests ... but their own.

[Frank Colver]

Right on, Bob!

Frank

Sent from my room in the El Rancho Delores Motel, in 29 Palms CA.