Facebook ruins Zuckerberg Xmas(salon.com)
salon.com
Facebook ruins Zuckerberg Xmas
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/26/mark_zuckerbergs_sister_is_angry_that_a_family_photo_posted_on_facebook_became_public/
11 comments
What, pray tell, does this have to do with anonymity?
I imagine they were pointing out the irony that someone who wanted to see the end of internet anonymity, which would inherently reduce privacy, is now complaining of a privacy breech on a site where there is relatively no anonymity.
I imagine that as well, but it's easy to see that these are meaningfully different kinds of privacy at stake.
Yes indeed and I am loving the irony here.
> Zuckerberg’s takeaway was “digital etiquette,” saying: ”always ask permission before posting a friend’s photo publicly. It’s not about privacy settings, it’s about human decency.”
Apparently "human decency" doesn't apply when Zuckerberg sells your information to 3rd party advertisers on Facebook and changes the TOS to let you know you don't own squat on his company's site. The irony is strong here.
Apparently "human decency" doesn't apply when Zuckerberg sells your information to 3rd party advertisers on Facebook and changes the TOS to let you know you don't own squat on his company's site. The irony is strong here.
You are quoting Randi Zuckerberg. She does not work at Facebook, so she certainly doesn't sell your information to advertisers or change the site's TOS.
I realize that. However she is not a dummy and should know better when she says her privacy's being violated on Facebook. Especially when her brother owns the damn company.
[deleted](1)
[deleted]
I wonder what Harvard's “digital etiquette”, Harvard's websites privacy settings, OR overall "human decency" meant to Zuckerberg when he was unlawfully scraping data off of their websites.
Wrong Zuckerberg. Randi did not scrape anything off a Harvard website.
Apparently reading comprehension isn't necessary when commenting about Facebook.
I'm disappointed to have to emphasize that this is Randi Zuckerberg responding to the leaked picture, not Mark Zuckerberg. There's no sweet irony here about creating a site and being burned by it, just being it's former chief marketing officer, I suppose.
[deleted]
How can he be angry? Posted a photo on a social network site which he developed, his security flaw, his mistake. You post a photo, you can't be angry when your security flaw means it goes global.
You don't seem to understand the very simple concept of politeness and knowing that you shouldn't share every photo you have access to publicly.
There is no technological solution to this and Facebook can't create it. I don't think they should try. People still have to shoulder the responsibility of being polite and decent themselvess. If they cannot manage, it's ok to be annoyed at them.
There is no technological solution to this and Facebook can't create it. I don't think they should try. People still have to shoulder the responsibility of being polite and decent themselvess. If they cannot manage, it's ok to be annoyed at them.
And making demands and disciplining someone through the public channel of Twitter instead of just calling your supposed friend is very decent and polite you think?
Typically, the pronouns "she" and "her" are used for females.
"Zuckerberg responded, saying, “Not sure where you got this photo. I posted it only to friends on FB. You reposting it on Twitter is way uncool.”"
Zuckerberg uploaded the photo, his sister "leaked" it.
While Zuckerbergs response resonates well with me I don't really get what he was thinking taking this so publicly, making full use of the Streisand-effect.
Either way, it is hilarious and he does deserve every bit of it. Even if he did nothing wrong in this case.
Zuckerberg uploaded the photo, his sister "leaked" it.
While Zuckerbergs response resonates well with me I don't really get what he was thinking taking this so publicly, making full use of the Streisand-effect.
Either way, it is hilarious and he does deserve every bit of it. Even if he did nothing wrong in this case.
Did you consider that Mark's sister's last name is also Zuckerberg? The article is all about Randi Zuckerberg, not Mark Zuckerberg.
I just did :(
My mind inserted Mark, even as a copy-pasted it. Sigh, good night.
My mind inserted Mark, even as a copy-pasted it. Sigh, good night.
His sister posted the photo, some other woman reposted it.
The "Zuckerberg" they mention in the article is Randi.
The "Zuckerberg" they mention in the article is Randi.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Did you read the article? Hell, did you even read the first sentence?
That moment when, what was that line by Mark? "Dont post online if you have anything to hide" or something? ... gets back at you and bites in the ass ...
What an exaggerated titled. Does the pic show anything compromising/very intimate? It appears it does not. Then why all the fuss about it? This could've went swiftly under the radar if she simply would've handled it privately.
A simple direct message on Twitter: 'hey, that's not supposed to be public, can you take it down please? and delete your tweet too.'
Simple and I can't imagine she would've been denied the request, for the very same reason, that she's a Zuckerberg.
A simple direct message on Twitter: 'hey, that's not supposed to be public, can you take it down please? and delete your tweet too.'
Simple and I can't imagine she would've been denied the request, for the very same reason, that she's a Zuckerberg.
This from the guy who says privacy is no longer the social norm?
No, this is not from "the guy", as all the quotes and tweets in the article are Randi's. Mark is only mentioned as being her brother.
Sure but isn't the blood connection here the major reason why we are even reading about this story?
I fail to see how that makes it OK to misattribute quotes.
[deleted](1)
The Streisand effect strikes again.
Pretty hilarious!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/randi-zuckerberg-an...
Oh, the irony indeed!