Zuck on it, Google: 'Public' Facebook events are dead to you Facebook is squirrelling away search results about its users' public events that could once be easily found through Google, The Register has learned. The move appears to have followed the unveiling of the social network's Graph Search, a beta version of which has been deployed to its one-billion-strong active userbase. …
I would be fine and happy if Google, Bing, et al, removed all and any links to Facebook from their engines.
I despise clicking on a link only to be asked "Please sign up for a Facebook account to see this page).....
If FB doesn't want to share what's on it members pages then I am fine with that, but in that case please do not allow the pages to be listed on search engines.
( Dear Pedantards - am I allowed to use the word "but" after the comma ? )
You probably can/may use the comma before "but", but, then, "I'd probably place a comma after "but" and after "case" in my case, hehhehe.
Three things I really despise in written English:
-- intransigent, unforgivable failure (especially in news and other media) to place a comma in between the last and next to last clause in a sentence, which would prevent the stupid appearance that an "and" joins two clauses that are really items of a list
(Ministry of Land, Water and Power" to my mind is horribly flawed. It should read "Ministry of Land, Water, and Power" since it is fairly clear/likely that Water and Power are two distinct agencies within a government structure. "The suspects were detained due to possession of illegal narcotics, weapons and unattributable cash and credit cards" should read: "The suspects were detained due to possession of illegal narcotics, weapons, and unattributable cash and credit cards." Even better, to reduce confusion, it shoud read: "The suspects were detained due to possession of weapons, illegal narcotics, and unattributable cash and credit cards." That would remove the danger/risk that the modifier "illegal" in "illegal narcotics" could somehow apply to "weapons", which may or may not be illegal in this instance -- particularly since there would be a difference in suspects being detained while carrying modeling or sculpting knives versus carrying 250-lb force crossbows and 45 poison-tipped arrows...)
-- intransigent, and inexcusable refusal to separate paragraphs with white space or a whole line
(These days, despite "tradition" and "custom", there is really NO excuse to not make it easier for readers to read, and font sizes can be easily reduced to fit text onto a slightly smaller body of paper.
I have so much f*cking trouble trying to correct my Asian (generally Korean) friends who do this. Dunno where they learned it, but is is troublesome and forces a reader to intellectually figure out where a new topic is introduced when a paragraph's last sentence is too close to the end of the block of text, making a string of paragraphs appear as a huge, insurmountable sea of letters.)
-- confusion between "then" and "than"
(Imagine the humor in some cases.
"I'd rather eat a teaspoon of sh*t then do drugs." Oh, so, such a person would rather do BOTH, but not ONE. Nevermind that there is no comma inserted for effect between "sh*t" and "then", hahahaha
"It is faster to run then walk." Oh, really? )
But, who am I? I commit grammar errors, too.
I'm sorry dssf but I got to the third paragraph, and just couldn't be bothered any more. I'm sure others read the rest though, it would be a shame to offer up all that information and no one bothered going past the third paragraph. I just have a short attention span and grammar was never something that held my interest.
When I typed the example in the article:
like: dance "January 2013" site:facebook.com/events
I was presented with a list of links.
Under each link, there was the following option:
Block facebook.com
courtesy of the Personal Blocklist Chrome extension.
I clicked on that, and suddenly all the links to Facebook disappeared.
I recommend it, as it is especially useful for permanently removing link farms from search results.
Google search would be a better product if links which required a user to be logged in could be ranked lower. As well as sites like Facebook, there are "answers" sites where on the open web you can find that other people have been asking the same question as you, but you have to log in to see the answer in a private silo. And of course, the same goes for newspaper sites where you need to register to see the full article. Hopefully this wouldn't fall foul of any regulations.
<pedantry>You may not add extra spaces between parentheses, question marks and other text but, the comma is Ok by me.</pedantry>
There isn't any evidence so far that what is seen by Google is being restricted.
What has changed, is that if you click on a link to see the details, Facebook will not let you see "public" pages, unless you are logged in. This is an interesting definition of "public", and one that may not make much sense. It will certainly be problematic for some people that want to publicize themselves, and people "forced" to sign up won't be as valuable to Facebook as those "encouraged" to do so.
But, regardless, it's still possible for Facebook to present some data to Google web crawlers to allow information to be found, whilst instructing Google not to cache it, and serving pages up to normal browsers behind authentication. And there isn't evidence that this isn't happening.
"There isn't any evidence so far that what is seen by Google is being restricted.
What has changed, is that if you click on a link to see the details, Facebook will not let you see "public" pages, unless you are logged in."
Yes, and this is easily verified by visiting the page for a public event within Facebook, copying the URL, and pasting it into the URL bar of another browser, which isn't logged in. Hey presto, the log-in screen, with no search engine involved to get there.
"This is an interesting definition of "public", and one that may not make much sense."
Isn't it just.
I deleted my Facebook account 2 years ago, and requested all data deleted. About 3 months ago I needed a Facebook account because of a braindead company that still assumes everyone has one, so I registered a fake account in a private browsing window (not that it mattered, Cookies went years ago) and gave no personal details whatsoever.
As soon as I logged onto this supposedly anonymous account, it recommended I connect with my mother's facebook.
Quite clearly when I ticked the box to say delete everything, they ignored that, and kept at minimum details of my IP address and my friends lists...
I would complain to the ICO, but it seems they are far too busy pandering to Microsoft at the minute....
It does that even if you never had an account...
I signed up, then immediatly deleted when I realised how sinister it was.
The 'recommended friends' were probably about 90% accurate, even though I'd never had a facebook account and not given it access to any of my address books or personal details.
I gather it works by recommending people who have searched for you (even before you had an account). They keep track of those so that when you do join...POW, look at all your friends.
I believe one of Facebook's tricks is to rely on email address. They've been harvesting people's whole address books from their smartphone apps, so they've then got an automatic 'friends' list for you when you sign up (assuming you use the email your friends have anyway).
I've been on there for about 2 years, for family stuff. I think I posted twice in 2012, and I always log out. But I'm getting concerned about all the data they're mining about me from links. And of course I don't control the privacy policies of my 'friends' even if I lock down all my stuff, and assume they actually don't ignore my privacy settings. I have no trust in Facebook to do that...
Once people start tagging me in photos, I don't have any control of that. So I'm wondering if it's time to quit, before it's too late. And to think I used to be worried about Google's sinister data collection habits...
Google are a drop in the ocean compared to Facebook. Google actually delete your profile if you ask (I tried, it worked), and you can also download all your stuff in handy zip files, if you want to go elsewhere.
https://www.google.com/takeout/
Facebook offer nothing like this...
No, they're not. GA is on what, 90% of websites now? If you're talking about popular websites it's probably closer to 99%. Facebook wish they had that sort of coverage. Facebook are obviously serious about locking people in, but that doesn't make Google a tiny inoffensive privacy defender by any stretch...
I've found similar when ditching an e-mail address for my main account and using it for a second throwaway one.
I'd used this e-mail address on my main one for a few years then deleted and blocked a load of people and eventually changed my e-mail address. Half a year later I re-use my original address for a new account and started getting friend suggestions for all the people I used to be friends with, even those I'd blocked them when it was on my old account.
The problem is that even if you ask FB to delete your attributed data, they simply seem to strip the header off the records that point at information leading to you personally- like with Google, the web events they tie together via their web snooping (Facebook buttons and "friends") simply remain unallocated until such time as you renew permission, at which point that chain gets re-connected to you as an identity.
An example: if you regularly look at a number of news sites in sequence (say, BBC, then CNN), this is a repeat event which is connected to the ID they tend to lodge in your browser unless you're in the habit of surfing in private mode (no idea if they also use LSOs - I haven't detected that). If you'd follow the sequence again and then LOG IN at another website, there is suddenly an identity associated with the chain. Just keep stacking events (it's a DB query, after all) and eventually these events tie to a name and identity.
The problem is that they are not supposed to have those details, but it's hiding in their database until such time as you create an account - at that point you have given permission and thus that previously unallocated cluster of possibly related events now has an associated identity (note the word "possibly").
This is why these companies are so dangerous - by sniffing everywhere they *will* eventually add your identity to events. However, because you're dealing with matches based on likelihood such associations are not absolute. Now, for serving focused ads this can at best lead to embarrassment, but if you want to see what happens when you provide data to law enforcement who have no training to recognise that such results are not facts but probabilities you only need to look at the cock-ups surrounding the TSA no-fly list.
This is why the known association with 3 letter agencies of both FB and Google is dangerous. They have the means to declare perfectly innocent people guilty because few know how to interpret the results correctly - least of all law enforcement.
I tried to enter a competition on a magazine website - which you had to have an account for. I won't tell you the name, but suffice to say the title contains a letter and a number and is about gadgets and things.
Only to find "enter the competition on facebook", or tweet to enter our competition.
No I won't you w@nkers!
You have a website that I had to register to use that you lazy B@stards.
I'm refuse to join Tw@ter as to be honest there is no on that I am that interested in that I want to hear what flavour of Pizza you are thinking about eating.
I refuse to join facebook as their privacy changes more often than MS applies patches.
I don't want a web in a web, if I did I would have used AOL!
Now I don't mind some people wanting to do this, it is their right to give all thier private details away, but I don't want to facebook freind my Bogroll, Washing powder, or anything else!
Give me back my WEB you B@stards
But it's impossible to carry on a sensible conversation between 3 anonymous cowards. So respect doesn't really enter into it, it's about practicality. It's not like you have to use your real name, but a tag that ties posts together is useful.
And if your competition is only open to facebook users that should be clear at the start.
Somewhat hard of thinking are you? I know I shouldn't be feeding the trolls but I'm in a swashbuckling mood. The third party running a competition will not be locating Richard Gray 1 within an actual social network and thus inferring (and possibly allowing others to infer) a great deal of information about him based on this location. He isn't trying to insult anyone from behind a veil of anonymity either.
El Reg really needs to ban the AC option. nothing of value is lost from such a move anyway, not that AC posted anything useful in the history of this site.
If you had any idea of who are behind some of the anon tags you would understand that El Reg does the right thing - some of us actually have something to contribute but take a risk in doing so. There is a secondary thing you should have realised by now: you may be anon to the Internet, but you have to log in to post. Ergo, to El Reg you are *not* anonymous (although I don't know if they actually use that information).
In conclusion, derogatory remarks about people choosing to protect their identity only shows how clueless you are yourself. You may even be using Facebook..
@AC Tuesday 29th January 2013 23:08 GMT
No, and there is absolutely no need for the AC option, you're probably still thinking about that risk thing, but it's all in your head, only El Reg know who you are anyway, and they also know who you are when posting as AC, don't kid yourself, you have NO PRIVACY if that's your belief.
Also El Reg know nothing of WHO you are, unless you actually use your Real Name for your Reg handle? And no I don't use ShitBook or sorry, I mean DataBook as that's all it's there for to hand info to Suckersberg and co.
Agree with Graham above about the not-public "public" setting: Annoying to people looking for some -thing/-one ("Great, an organization in my area that does ... oh wait, I can't see it, crap, *sigh*, OK, next") but presumably more so to those trying to post the info to world + dog and only getting {0 .. Boobface}.
There really are a load of holier than thou sorts on these threads, isn't there?
Don't use Facebook or Twitter, and that means you can claim your FREE golden halo!
Anyway, the general concensus of washing powder, bogroll, breakfast etc etc etc is a complete load of hogwash! Both of these sites can be a thriving community for like-minded souls...but NO....you lot just believe that crap you read in the papers. If you've never signed up for them, how do you know?
And as for "I've never used FaceAche but I know it's rubbish".... what a complete spanner! That's like saying.... I've never driven a BMW, but I know that they are ALL shite!
Mine's the one that's ready for walking out the door and leaving you f**kwits to it....
This post has been deleted by its author
He had a bike? !!
Blimey, you could make a fortune if you ever found that ... Christ's bike I mean. Probably a chopper I reckon.
I join every social network I can find and you know what? I now have 30,000 friends!! I used to be called Billy-no-mates ... not-no more !!
I'm now Billy-loads-a-mates.
"To be fair to Facebook, at least I don't have a metric crap-tonne of Facebook CDs kicking around, plus dropping out of every magazine I ever touch. "
Somehow, I 'spect that if CDs were still a viable transport, you'd have enough new FB christmas ornaments to decorate a forest...
Next maybe the Zuckerplebs can stop sites like Pipl.com from mining FB profiles..
... and stop Google caching PRIVATE profile PHOTOS! Its easy to see how data on FB is leaking like a sieve. Create a unique profile name then wait a while perhaps a few months and then :-
A. Search the unique FB profile on Pipl.com...
B. Search the unique FB profile name using images.google.com
If using google or yahoo remember to use quotes around the unique profile name and prefix a minus symbol to filter out the wrong close search suggestions…
Back in the day there was a standard mantra that went something like "there is no such thing as a free lunch"; indeed it became a cliche, an acronym (TANSTAAFL), and in recent times seems to have faded away.
Its great that so much on t'internet is free at point of use, but its worth reminding yourself occasionally that that does not mean you're not paying for it.
if you are a cretinous marketing scumbag, your whole entire job probably consists of typing strings into Facebook search like a monkey on amphetamines all day. It helps if you're the kind of pleb who watches X factor un-ironically. It probably also helps if you wear 3 inches of fake tan so that nobody can see what a visibly horrible person you are.
'It's also simple to find married people who "liked" prostitutes'
Er, seriously? The mind boggles:
First, that prostitutes have Facebook pages (I can see the status update - "OMG, got the clap!!!! lololol!!!! Best get yourselves checked out, boys!")
Second, that a married man would be insane enough to "like" one of their pages, given that would be visible to anyone on his friends list (and probably some not on his friends list).
I see that you've been living in a cave for the past decade, during which social media became the *primary* means for prostitutes to hook up with their clients. A Columbia University study in 2010 showed that 83% of prostitutes already had Facebook pages, and concluded that "Facebook will be the leading on-line recruitment space [for sex profession workers] by the end of 2011".
So, and of course this is purely for ...ahem...research purposes. How would one go about seeking one in their local area... or within 200 miles anyway. Preferably, clean, fully tested and attractive, willing to experiment and very discreet........... Like I said...Just for research purposes... and in case perhaps a friend.. yes that's it... a friend happened to require one. :-)
I don't use Facebook, Twitter, Google+ or any other social media
Ignoring the irony of posting that as a comment (very social web of you...) you might want to consider visiting sites other than El Reg, or at the very least skipping over the posts about social technology issues.
Just a thought.
'Upload your entire email address book... and we'll help you find all your old friends!
Giving out your email address to anyone anytime has become a whole other liability! Once someone uploads their address book you and they become inextricable linked, at least in Facebook’s eyes, no matter how little correspondence occurred or how many years ago it was!
Its no longer necessary to have friends lists, you can be informally tagged guilty by address book association. The big mail hosters are the worst offenders here, as they automatically add contacts to the address book i.e. Google Gmail.
All it takes is for one idiot to upload their address book for you to find yourself being tagged in all sort of unwanted ways… That and the sheer amount of unsolicited Facebook and Linked-In invitations one receives is a real pain!
That's actually a massive whole in the whole Data Protection legislation: a company has to give chapter and verse about what they are going to use YOUR data for, but there is no control over what they can ask your FRIENDS about you. That's why they're all so eager to get your address book - it allows them to legally bypass all that annoying Data Protection stuff.
I also hate the BS that providing your mobile number will increase your privacy - both Facebook and Google have been at this for ages. In reality, it allows them to build a mobile phone database - something we left behind when we went from landlines to mobiles. Personally, I very much like it that way - I noticed that the "do not contact for marketing" flag is very frequently ignored, usually by companies that simple operate from abroad so you cannot go after them without great expense so not having a public number is A-OK as far as I'm concerned.
What Facebook is in effect telling its users is that the company needs to build a web within the web in order to encourage everyone to create an account and make Facebook more money as it fends off Google.
Isn't that like Microsoft Network opening the cover of its well-deserved coffin (from inside) to horrible creaking? Bystanders are bound to get a yeast infection.
There is the Internet, where public is "public".
Then there is the Faceberk network which runs atop the Internet and is only visible to self-confessed Faceberkers.
Personally I think this is a good thing. The less normal people have to put up with the vacuous, self-absorbed Faceberkers the better.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
