Facebook Switches Everyone's Emails to @Facebook.com

[engine]

Facebook Switches Everyone's Emails to @Facebook.com [latimes.com]

Without asking for permission, Facebook has changed users' listed email address to one ending in "@facebook.com."

The changed was discovered Saturday, and has resulted in either users having their @facebook.com address being listed or simply having all of their other addresses be hidden, as happened in my case.

[Digmen1]

I think many of you above are forgetting the fact that there are 2 types of Facebook users.

The average person who uses Facebook to keep track of the friends etc and post photos of their life and trips etc (that is most of them)

The webmaster, techhie sort of person who uses Facebook to try to make sales (that is most of us on here)

Which is the bigger group ?

[hal12b]

#1 by far. Linkedin is by far a better option in my opinion for networking professionally. Before I left facebook I started unfriending the habitual offenders that kept posting what they had for dinner, then I unfriended the people that continually bragged about their jobs, then it was the people that continually posted pictures of their pets, then the people that were always down in the dumps, then... I said this is useless. I never made one sale or business connection. I do believe you may be better off having a bogus account and then creating a page for your business or movement, but personally, useless for me. There will be studies down the road how these virtual friendships ruined people. The next Ted Kaczynski will confess to only having 50 friends on facebook before he's executed!

[anallawalla]

The type 2 users need to be on top of these things to help the type 1s, who are often our own family and friends. If I don't help some of my friends before they have a problem, I'm the one they'll call to fix it. :)

[jimji]

anallawalla, you have made a point that is a key for me. I have become quite the activist at times because I think there is something much deeper involved in these matters.

I cannot understand how our rights in the brick-and-mortar world are not supposed to be transferred to the Net world.

If something is illegal in the brick-and-mortar world, why is it not illegal in the Net world.

Years ago when I first read some sales agreement I was asked to sign by some software company that stated they were not responsible for damage their software might cause to my computer I was astounded.

I just couldn't understand how the top legal folks were allowing that to be. GM, Toyota, Fiat, etc. are surely not allowed to sell cars with a sales agreement that states if the engineering of the car is found to cause accidents the manufacturers are not liable. I couldn't understand why the double standard, but I learned why. It still is a horrible thing, in my view.

The same reasons why that is allowed is also why privacy rights are not properly protected on the Net. Why companies can pull stunts like, 'We're issuing you a new User Name that will also be your email account and publishing that email account's identifying features to the rest of the world. And we are not particularly concerned about any legal ramifications by doing this because the lawmakers think this is all a big joke, anyway.'

And that is it in a nutshell, folks. THE LAWMAKERS! They do not give a darn unless there are taxes to be levied or a big cheese of a citizen in their voting district complains to them about some aspect of the Net.

Heck, Google, Inc. is making lots of money from the United States government to help them spy on people all over the world. That is a fact. folks.

In addition, I don't really think the younger folks that are so common on the Net these days really understand what's going on. I don't think the younger folks really understand what privacy means. I don't think they understand that sometimes some serious effort has to be put into stopping the taking away of our hard earned rights. We're heading back toward past days when governments did just about anything they wanted.

We're heading back toward the days of the big landowners doing whatever they wanted to those living on their land, and the people living on the land of the big landowners had no protection from the governments that had some control over the landowner.

These days that "land" is the Internet. And we are those same peons of ages ago and we ain't got no rights, to speak of. We be the New Age Peons. Make no mistake about it. We ain't #*$! in the eyes of those big "landowners".

Sorry to all members reading my two recent posts. Stuff like this makes me very angry. Facebook should learn a lesson from what they've done, but they obviously studied the issue before they did it and as they went ahead and did it they feel they are within their rights and can get past the howl without too much trouble. And they assumed most folks won't even think they did any wrong. It's the way things are on the Net these days. These big "landowners" are going to keep pushing and pushing and if the lawmakers don't stop them, nobody will. And the more the big "landowners" get away with the bolder they will become. Who will stop them, if the goverment doesn't?

[bhonda]

So...I know this email issue isn't a great move by Facebook, but aren't we getting a little carried away here? Isn't Facebook opt-in? If you don't like it, surely you can just leave?

It's the day when everyone is forced to have a Facebook account, etc, that's when we have to worry.

But at the moment, please put it in perspective. It's a dumb move, yes, and could have a legal issue, but it's no more.

[lucy24]

Isn't Facebook opt-in? If you don't like it, surely you can just leave?

Yes, and you can buy a heavy padlock and put it on your barn door-- but that doesn't make it retroactively OK for someone to steal your horse in the first place.

Now, if they had sent out advance notice saying that 60 days from today, a band of horse thieves will be visiting your neighborhood, then you would have nobody to blame but yourself if you didn't take appropriate precautions.

[jimji]

bhonda, I agree with you on the "getting carried away" part, if you were referring to my post. I started getting carried away with the Buzz fiasco and it's been one thing after another since then.

But your point about opting in doesn't seem to address the issue of Facebook executives not only NOT asking first of those that already had accounts, but not even warning us so we might leave before it happened.

They added some digits to my User ID so they could then give me that email account. I suppose there was another person with my User ID. I don't know.

I also was a little confused about what was what over there and maybe they added something. That "Timeline" profile thingy was where the new username was showing and I seem to have gotten rid of that. I have my Facebook account up on the another computer right now and can't find that timeline thingy, or whatever it was called. The instructuions I read in that link on page 1 in this thread were not quite right for what I was seeing and I was poking around and deleting this and that and editing this and that and finally all that extra username and email address and it seems the whole timeline thing seems to have disappeared and now I can't find it.

Did anyone else have digits added to their User ID?

BUT to get back to my main point, bhonda, nobody from Facebook asked me diddly anything before they did what they did and I say that's wrong! And I think complaining is called for. Sure, walking away from the service is an option for me, but I would like to see a stop to this whole trend in the entire industry, thank you. And on that point I will continue to get "carried away". It has to stop.

The United Nations put out a study last year, or the year before, about how some folks are not benefitting from using the Internet. Or something like that. I have the report someplace. If I am not mistaken, they are basically stating that folks may eventually have a right to use the Net. At least they are leaning in that direction, if they haven't already stated that.

So what rights will we have when we use the Net when the Net itself is a right?

[Leosghost]

I'm sure I keep reading about governmental moves in the UK to use your facebook login or Google login as "the" ID to access your social security system payments or housing files details or even you medical health records..

At which point membership of these corporation supplied free services is not opt in at all..you would be unable to access the services which you have a right as a citizen to access and which as a taxpayer you have paid for..

Which I think is precisely the reason they are trying to get their data collection methods to be able to hoover up as much as possible so that when the day does come that the UK or another country makes being a member of one of theses "social networks" the only way you can access national government services or local government services, the facebooks and the Googles will say "no choice, either give us all the details of your lives, as per our ( in place since whatever year we began asking how many times you visit the toilet per day and the name of you family pets and maternal grandmother ) system or no health care for you"..

They are brib^^^^^^^lobbying very very hard to have themselves appointed de facto gate keepers to government services and officially acceptable and recognised repositories of citizens personal data..and arbiters of official accepted proof of any citizens identity..

[jimji]

Now that is a very frightening scenario in your last paragraph, Leosghost. I sure would hope the lawmakers in that land did their homework before they allowed that to happen.

A de facto gatekeeper to government services

-- how frightening.

Heh, didn't I read that in some country there were legal notices of one thing or another that could stand up in court if posted on one or more of those social networking sites? I am sure I have read that is already a law in some land. No?

[bhonda]

The sky is falling.

Ok, I realise that this is an issue for existing users - having some kind of notification beforehand would definitely have been a good move. I'm not trying to defend Facebook here - I do think they've been on a slippery slope for quite a while now. I'm not happy about this decision either, and I don't like the fact that the majority of users won't know the implications of this until something bad happens.

However, maybe I'm just being naive here, but I highly doubt there is this big old evil plan, set up by the execs of Facebook, to defraud and manipulate the world. Sure, they are out to make money, and sure, they've probably had those awkward legal conversations, but I honestly believe that most of these bad decisions are down to incompetence rather than evil.

So yes, it is indeed right to complain about it, and stand up for rights, and privacy. But remember, in the grand scheme of things, being given a Facebook email address by default and without consent, is not the end of the world. You will survive.

[engine]

Let's not get into Government issues - this thread is about Facebook switching without consent.

It's not the first time, and it won't be the last that FB do this kind of thing.

It's not only FB, of course. All those people that put their life story online are risking exposure by those that want to do harm. Whether it be a spammer wanting to e-mail you, or an identity thief.

Yes, I agree it's not the end of the world.

However, it should make each FB user consider what else is next.

[jimji]

If Leosghost is correct, in what manner would one than be surviving?

And, bhonda, please be careful about how you expound upon what someone writes here. Please.

I didn't write that there was any grand conspiracy. Of course, there better not be. That would make things too easy.

What I am advocating is at some point in time there will be a need for the "average" Internet user to think very hard about whether they feel they have any rights when they are using a social media service such as Facebook.

The argument we have seen over and over and even here on Webmaster World is that the owner can do just about anything they want to do because they have rights as the owner. I would like to have that thinking studied a bit.

AND

Administrator, with all due respect, if there is any truth to what Leosghost wrote, then just why should government use of Facebook be editted from the thread? Well, you are asking us to censor ourselves, right? Is that really how this website works? We are supposed to watch how we post, even if the subject leans only slightly away from the OP? Is it that discussion of government use of social media and any possible rights that arise thereof is of some concern to you if it is posted here?

Obviously, your request for us to censor ourselves confuses me. Now I don't really know what I can post in this thread. I feel kind of hamstrung.

[StoutFiles]

I think many of you above are forgetting the fact that there are 2 types of Facebook users.

While the type 2 user is much smaller, they have more control of the content posted on the web. A lot of sites are angry about this, and henceforth, a lot of average people who wouldn't have otherwise noticed or cared are now angry too.

[diberry]

Did anyone else get notified last week that Facebook had tried to send you email through your listed address, and it hadn't worked, so Facebook needed you to provide another email? I got that, and it offended me because I know my email works and they're sending email to it all the time. I got that notice quite a few times, and considered it fraud. And then this.

I thought it was annoying when Google started trying to get my mobile number every time I log in, and put the opt-out link at the bottom in a small font. At least they didn't claim there'd already been consequences from my not giving it to them.

I feel like I need a shower when I (reluctantly) use FB.

[londrum]

facebook is like your bank. you can moan and moan about the stuff they do all day, but you will never leave because it's too much hassle -- you'd have to get all your friends to desert to another platform as well. a big chunk of their users are locked into it. they have invested so much time with their posts and photos.
so they can do these annoying little things without worrying too much

[engine]

Administrator, with all due respect, if there is any truth to what Leosghost wrote, then just why should government use of Facebook be editted from the thread? Well, you are asking us to censor ourselves, right? Is that really how this website works? We are supposed to watch how we post, even if the subject leans only slightly away from the OP? Is it that discussion of government use of social media and any possible rights that arise thereof is of some concern to you if it is posted here?

Obviously, your request for us to censor ourselves confuses me. Now I don't really know what I can post in this thread. I feel kind of hamstrung.

jimji, if you're referring to me, engine, nobody has censored leosghost's post but himself. ;)

My note was about keeping this thread on topic, and that includes me. :)

londrum, quite right, people get locked in, and it takes a whole group to move. But to where would they move, and wouldn't the risk be of a similar change elsewhere?

[Leosghost]

My post is uncensored..by me or anyone else..satire is not de^^^^^ying, but merely resting..;) source.. Tom [e-mail]

[jimji]

But to where would they move, and wouldn't the risk be of a similar change elsewhere?

NOTE: The quote is truncated.

I say the answer to the question is undeniably, YES.

That is the reason I have crossed the line from skeptical scrutiny to advocacy.

It is time to look at the bigger picture of the industry as a whole and that means looking at what rights these customers have. And, yes, I mean to use the word "customer" and not "user".

As noted in a previous post, just because the price of the product was 0 dollars / pounds / Euros when you signed up for the product should not make you any less a "customer" than the fella or gal that might have paid 100 dollars / pounds / Euros.

Besides the "soup line mentality" another problem is the idea that we are "users" and not "customers". It implies a belittling of the human when he/she is referred to as a "user".

If you, who may be reading this, disagree and view the user with the same respect as the customer, that's absolutely great and my hat is off to you. Unfortunately, I think you might be a minority. That needs to change.

We need more awareness of what the little things in the language may signify and cause to shape attitudes and I have seen far too often the term "user" used in a sense that meant to imply the person who was being addressed was a tad below the level of a customer.