Alert Blog Reviews

Mark Zuckerberg and I aren’t Facebook friends. That’s cool; I don’t know him. Until recently, all I could see of his profile was his picture, networks and friend list. But this morning, either the Facebook CEO had decided that’s what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, or even he didn’t know what the new privacy settings changed. I’m going to guess that it was B, because since the articles on True Slant and ValleyWag have run, Zuckerberg’s profile is a lot more private. On his Page (where you can be his fan, not to be confused with his profile), Zuckerberg defends the change: For those wondering, I set most of my content on my personal Facebook page to be open so people could see it. I set some of my content to be more private, but I didn’t see a need to limit visibility of pics with my friends, family or my teddy bear Oh, really? Because when I try to visit his profile, I get a “Mark only shares some of his profile information with everyone.” message at the top of his profile, and no photos. Zuckerberg does still share some of his info with everyone: his basic info, personal info (only the about me: “i’m trying to make the world a more open place.”), education and work, and five of the pages he’s a fan of. (These five rotate; screen caps from the privacy changes indicate he has 17 pages.) Also public: his links, friends and events. There is, of course, another possibility as to why some people like Kashmir Hill can see his photos—they have mutual friends (Hill’s is another Facebook employee). When you update your privacy settings, the new default setting for photos is to make them visible to “Friends of Friends.” (I’ve contacted Ryan Tate to see if he also has at least one mutual friend, but haven’t heard back yet. Mark and I share no friends.) But really, as Facebook is pushing more people to go public, and if Zuckerberg is really “trying to make the world a more open place,” he could do a lot more opening himself. The CEO of the site might be seen as an example to users—and if he really wants them to go public, should he be willing to do the same? What do you think? Was this an accident on Zuckerberg’s part, or because Tate and Hill have mutual friends?

Excerpt from:
Even Mark Zuckerberg Isn’t Sure About Getting More Public

Depending on your point of view, Flickr just created an easy way to spot any pending reputation disasters, or just made it easier for one to occur. The photo sharing has added a feature we’ve seen cause reputation headaches in Facebook–the ability to tag a person inside a photo. Here’s how it looks: Now, in the half-full camp, this new feature will make it easier for you to be alerted when an embarrassing photo of you is posted to Flickr. Tackle it now, before anyone else sees it. In the half-empty camp, this is bad news because those photos of your partying the night away, are easier for people to find. Either way, you need not worry about the new feature–so long as you take some preemptive action. You can simply wait for each photo to appear in your "Recent Activity" and remove your name from those that you don’t like–you can’t delete the actual image, just the name tag. If you don’t visit Flickr often–or don’t want to take any chances–Flickr has a new " People in Photos " preference page that looks like this: What if you’re not a Flickr user? Fortunately, the site has thought of that: We also extend that same level of personal control to people who aren’t on Flickr. If you wish to add someone to a photo who’s not yet a member, that person needs to give their approval to be added. Consider this a PSA for those of you that find yourself in embarrassing photos.

View post:
Act Now to Avoid a Flickr Reputation Headache!