Ask HN: Would you pay for privacy in a social network like Facebook?
6 comments
No, but I will (and do) limit my social media activity without it.
And it has nothing to do with advertising. I like that companies know what to show me. I do not like that facebook seems intent on telling everyone I know (and presumably many I don't) what I am doing all the time. Open is not the default for me.
Aggregating likes, interests, and behaviors is not the same as saying "Damon is looking at an article about how bad the Colorado Buffaloes football team is at 12:30 PM". The former actually helps me (at least that's my personal take - others may disagree). The latter does not, and could conceivably harm me.
And it has nothing to do with advertising. I like that companies know what to show me. I do not like that facebook seems intent on telling everyone I know (and presumably many I don't) what I am doing all the time. Open is not the default for me.
Aggregating likes, interests, and behaviors is not the same as saying "Damon is looking at an article about how bad the Colorado Buffaloes football team is at 12:30 PM". The former actually helps me (at least that's my personal take - others may disagree). The latter does not, and could conceivably harm me.
Yes. I would definitely pay Google for some features. (I'd really like an option to "de-bubble" me; I'd really like an option to go back to 2004 style searching; etc.)
Facebook's reach is pretty scary / annoying. I'd gladly pay them to have some of the functionality but with better privacy options.
I'd always consider paying a site to not show adverts. I'd much rather pay a news-site for quality reporting than have to put up with link-bait trolling and ads and [1][2][3] pages of chopped up articles.
Facebook's reach is pretty scary / annoying. I'd gladly pay them to have some of the functionality but with better privacy options.
I'd always consider paying a site to not show adverts. I'd much rather pay a news-site for quality reporting than have to put up with link-bait trolling and ads and [1][2][3] pages of chopped up articles.
It depends how critical it is to you. Very few people I know use it more than face to face, or msn/gmail/other digital contact to keep up with people.
It's not really an invasion of privacy if your information is shared to your friends based on your privacy settings, and never seen by the advertisers.
It's not really an invasion of privacy if your information is shared to your friends based on your privacy settings, and never seen by the advertisers.
Not unless my friends and family were also on the service, since that's the whole point of a social network - and since they're not willing to pay for a Facebook-like service, I'm not likely to either.
No. I would simply not give them my data in the first instance. I don't believe you should have to pay for privacy - especially if you are simply an average citizen.
Would you pay the mailman to stop him from opening and reading your letters? I would not
Reminds of the Gmail Man! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFCSp23xl40
correct, but somebody else has put a stamp on it already.
I believe, this has to change. For this I'd like to learn, would you pay for a Facebook-like service in order to keep your data private and safe?