Facebook security article -- Not very secure, or 'evil'?

I sent to an email to a writer on Gawker website,  re: Ryan Tate's Article on Gawker "Facebook's Great Betrayal":
Facebook's privacy pullback isn't just outrageous; it's a landmark turning point for the social network. Facebook has blundered before, but the latest changes are far more calculated. The company has, in short, turned evil.
Here's the email I sent to Ryan (which includes a comment I posted on his article):
I just posted this comment on the tail of your article:
I guess I can see why some might see this as 'the grand betrayal', if you want to take no personal responsibility for your data. But why would we all be uploading our info if we wanted to keep it private?
Bottom line -- if you don't want the public to find it, don't upload it to ANY social networking site.
I think there's something missing in this article about the concept of 'radical self-reliance'?

That was the extent of my response.
I guess I'm waiting for you [Ryan] to explain why this is 'evil' vs stupid policy or a bad move or 'money-grubbing' etc etc?
Can you explain to me how EVIL it is to say you are protecting people's security & then not doing it ...
vs the USA invading foreign countries, bombing countless innocent 3rd parties, assassinating suspects with drones, using BlackWater Agents to run secret missions in foreign countries, and to torture people suspected of crimes?
The issue for me is that you [Ryan] are chosing to mis-use a word to create hype.
Some might argue that, in a 2010 USA, that act is evil.
I would just say it's journalism that has forgotten the point of why journalism exists. Or, another way is to say ... bad journalism.
Have a nice day!

No comments: