Aug 30

My first good impression of Facebook is its care for Privacy.
When user wants to add friend, Facebook prompts for the relationship with the recipient and the system verifies if the information matches. Correct me if I’m wrong, but many people who prefer this strictness in Privacy turn out to be diligent and thoughtful enough to savvy technology and social effects of the internet.
This solves a problem of many contemporary social networking sites such as MySpace: arbitrary networking leads to privacy abuse.
However, this in turn limits the ability to discover new sites and new people. Most of users’ Facebook networks likely come from already known sources. The chance to meet new people, or discover new sites is limited proportionally to the privacy limit.
My conclusion is that this variety of usability and website nature gives web-surfers more choices of services and more channels of connection.
The more choices the merrier.
Tags of this article: choice,facebook,information,myspace,networking,privacy,security,social,usability,web-2.0.
Last update August 30, 2007
Related Posts
Facebook added more privacy optionsChat now in FacebookThe day (social media) people fear is near: Facebook’s gonna launch in VietnamFirst result of Facebook’s new design: its Relationship-based Semantic AdWrite “Hello User” Facebook Application using PHP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 14
Game theory
Game theory describes situations where multiple players make decisions in an attempt to maximize their returns.
Schelling point

A Schelling point (also called focal point) is a solution that people will tend to use in the absence of communication, because it seems natural, special or relevant to them.
Consider a simple example: two people unable to communicate with each other are each shown a panel of four squares and asked to select one; if and only if they both select the same one, they will each receive a prize. Three of the squares are blue and one is red. Assuming they each know nothing about the other player, but that they each do want to win the prize, then they will, reasonably, both choose the red square. Of course, the red square is not in a sense a better square; they could win by both choosing any square. And it is the “right” square to select only if a player can be sure that the other player has selected it; but by hypothesis neither can. It is the most salient, the most notable square, though, and lacking any other one most people will choose it, and this will in fact (often) work.
My version of Schelling point
A classic question was asked: “You will meet someone. Who will you meet, at where, an when?”. I sent the question via an Instant Messenger.
I shall announce my results when more replies have been received.
What’s your answer to the above question?
Tags of this article: choice,decision-making,game-theory,information,open,roi,schelling,science,solution,survey.
Last update May 14, 2007
Related Posts
My Second Vision: View of Contemporary WorldMy first vision - a Bridge between3 types of Use Case RelationshipWeb 2.0 - the Machine is Us/ing UsRMIT GPA System
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Comments