<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_11_1916203</id>
	<title>Facebook's Zuckerberg Says Forget Privacy</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1263204420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>judgecorp writes <i>"Privacy is <a href="http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/facebook-s-zuckerberg-questions-privacy-expectations-2983">no longer a social norm</a>, according to the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg. Speaking at the Crunchie awards in San Francisco, the entrepreneur said that expectations had changed, and people now default to sharing online, not privacy. It's all right for him, but does he mean it's ok for bodies like the UK government to <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/09/04/27/1428258/UK-Government-To-Monitor-All-Internet-Use">monitor all citizens' Internet use</a>?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>judgecorp writes " Privacy is no longer a social norm , according to the founder of Facebook , Mark Zuckerberg .
Speaking at the Crunchie awards in San Francisco , the entrepreneur said that expectations had changed , and people now default to sharing online , not privacy .
It 's all right for him , but does he mean it 's ok for bodies like the UK government to monitor all citizens ' Internet use ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>judgecorp writes "Privacy is no longer a social norm, according to the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg.
Speaking at the Crunchie awards in San Francisco, the entrepreneur said that expectations had changed, and people now default to sharing online, not privacy.
It's all right for him, but does he mean it's ok for bodies like the UK government to monitor all citizens' Internet use?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729802</id>
	<title>yawn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263208380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Technology advances faster than our ability to cope with it.</p><p>Film at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technology advances faster than our ability to cope with it.Film at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technology advances faster than our ability to cope with it.Film at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729748</id>
	<title>Zuckerberg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263208260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zuck this!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zuck this !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zuck this!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731306</id>
	<title>Re:He's wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263215940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I hope the United States follows suit someday.</p></div><p>Ha. If the US didn't come up with it, it sucks. Or at least that's what we think.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope the United States follows suit someday.Ha .
If the US did n't come up with it , it sucks .
Or at least that 's what we think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope the United States follows suit someday.Ha.
If the US didn't come up with it, it sucks.
Or at least that's what we think.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30734168</id>
	<title>Re:The look at me era</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263327960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's just because it's been so long ago since there's been a decent tyranny. More than a hundred years in most places and people have a short memory.<br>What's even more baffling is that around fifty years ago privacy as we know it now (which includes a certain amount of privacy from your fellow citizens rather than just the government) didn't exist either and people have sort of forgotten how horrible that was. Yes, when pressed people who still remember those days will agree that it was horrible how everyone new everything about everyone else but no one seems to mind that this is where we're going again.<br>It's like you burn your hand *ouch!* and instead of thinking "now don't do that again" you blow a few times on it and then proceed to put your hand back in the fire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just because it 's been so long ago since there 's been a decent tyranny .
More than a hundred years in most places and people have a short memory.What 's even more baffling is that around fifty years ago privacy as we know it now ( which includes a certain amount of privacy from your fellow citizens rather than just the government ) did n't exist either and people have sort of forgotten how horrible that was .
Yes , when pressed people who still remember those days will agree that it was horrible how everyone new everything about everyone else but no one seems to mind that this is where we 're going again.It 's like you burn your hand * ouch !
* and instead of thinking " now do n't do that again " you blow a few times on it and then proceed to put your hand back in the fire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just because it's been so long ago since there's been a decent tyranny.
More than a hundred years in most places and people have a short memory.What's even more baffling is that around fifty years ago privacy as we know it now (which includes a certain amount of privacy from your fellow citizens rather than just the government) didn't exist either and people have sort of forgotten how horrible that was.
Yes, when pressed people who still remember those days will agree that it was horrible how everyone new everything about everyone else but no one seems to mind that this is where we're going again.It's like you burn your hand *ouch!
* and instead of thinking "now don't do that again" you blow a few times on it and then proceed to put your hand back in the fire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730866</id>
	<title>Re:Forget privacy ... on Facebook anyway.</title>
	<author>Omestes</author>
	<datestamp>1263213360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps you should get those friends out of the closet, its rather cramped and uncomforable in there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps you should get those friends out of the closet , its rather cramped and uncomforable in there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps you should get those friends out of the closet, its rather cramped and uncomforable in there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731616</id>
	<title>My privacy says: FUCK ZUCKERBERG!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263217860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously.</p><p>I have a solution:<br>Backend: P2P Darknet<br>Frontend: Facebook-like</p><p>Everyone owns his own data. Because it&rsquo;s either on his computer, or the computer of someone he trusts. (Much like Opera&rsquo;s Unite)<br>On can use and set-up dedicated search and caching servers.<br>The backend is as secure and privacy-protecting as a darknet.<br>To the user, it&rsquo;s just a tiny program that you install, or that could even run on a trusted server (with a web-interface).<br>The point is that everyone can set-up such a server in five minutes (OS image for root servers provided, small software provided, and an offer to buy and OWN servers provided.)<br>With import-interfaces for Facebook, MySpace, etc, etc, etc. (But no export interfaces.)</p><p>That&rsquo;s just a rough idea. But the general concept of owning and ultimately controlling your own data in a secure environment, is good, imo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously.I have a solution : Backend : P2P DarknetFrontend : Facebook-likeEveryone owns his own data .
Because it    s either on his computer , or the computer of someone he trusts .
( Much like Opera    s Unite ) On can use and set-up dedicated search and caching servers.The backend is as secure and privacy-protecting as a darknet.To the user , it    s just a tiny program that you install , or that could even run on a trusted server ( with a web-interface ) .The point is that everyone can set-up such a server in five minutes ( OS image for root servers provided , small software provided , and an offer to buy and OWN servers provided .
) With import-interfaces for Facebook , MySpace , etc , etc , etc .
( But no export interfaces .
) That    s just a rough idea .
But the general concept of owning and ultimately controlling your own data in a secure environment , is good , imo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.I have a solution:Backend: P2P DarknetFrontend: Facebook-likeEveryone owns his own data.
Because it’s either on his computer, or the computer of someone he trusts.
(Much like Opera’s Unite)On can use and set-up dedicated search and caching servers.The backend is as secure and privacy-protecting as a darknet.To the user, it’s just a tiny program that you install, or that could even run on a trusted server (with a web-interface).The point is that everyone can set-up such a server in five minutes (OS image for root servers provided, small software provided, and an offer to buy and OWN servers provided.
)With import-interfaces for Facebook, MySpace, etc, etc, etc.
(But no export interfaces.
)That’s just a rough idea.
But the general concept of owning and ultimately controlling your own data in a secure environment, is good, imo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730228</id>
	<title>Re:A very self-serving claim.</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1263210240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(mod parent up)</p><p>I'm also of the older gen (cough...) and I can see this trainwreck from a mile away.  as you get older, you DO have more and more 'stuff' about you that you'd rather not be searchable and public.  trust me as your elder, on this (OB:GOML).</p><p>privacy will come back - MAYBE - in another generation or two.  once this one has grown up and found out the hard way, society might start to veer back a little bit.  but it WILL take being burned for the kids to day to really find out.  it will take at least a full generation before mankind is even partially used to this technology wave.  its just moving TOO fast for us and our social fabric is not developed or ready for this kind of personal flood of info being broadcast into the never-deleted-from ether.</p><p>be really careful with this 'show myself to the world' attitude.  the whole idea could be a really bad idea and we may have to learn that lesson the hard way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( mod parent up ) I 'm also of the older gen ( cough... ) and I can see this trainwreck from a mile away .
as you get older , you DO have more and more 'stuff ' about you that you 'd rather not be searchable and public .
trust me as your elder , on this ( OB : GOML ) .privacy will come back - MAYBE - in another generation or two .
once this one has grown up and found out the hard way , society might start to veer back a little bit .
but it WILL take being burned for the kids to day to really find out .
it will take at least a full generation before mankind is even partially used to this technology wave .
its just moving TOO fast for us and our social fabric is not developed or ready for this kind of personal flood of info being broadcast into the never-deleted-from ether.be really careful with this 'show myself to the world ' attitude .
the whole idea could be a really bad idea and we may have to learn that lesson the hard way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(mod parent up)I'm also of the older gen (cough...) and I can see this trainwreck from a mile away.
as you get older, you DO have more and more 'stuff' about you that you'd rather not be searchable and public.
trust me as your elder, on this (OB:GOML).privacy will come back - MAYBE - in another generation or two.
once this one has grown up and found out the hard way, society might start to veer back a little bit.
but it WILL take being burned for the kids to day to really find out.
it will take at least a full generation before mankind is even partially used to this technology wave.
its just moving TOO fast for us and our social fabric is not developed or ready for this kind of personal flood of info being broadcast into the never-deleted-from ether.be really careful with this 'show myself to the world' attitude.
the whole idea could be a really bad idea and we may have to learn that lesson the hard way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731326</id>
	<title>Re:The new social contract</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263216000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Liberty requires that we be able to speak anonymously when we have something important to say.  I'm totally fine with watching what I say in my main persona (eg, on Facebook), provided that I still have the option of anonymity when I need it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Liberty requires that we be able to speak anonymously when we have something important to say .
I 'm totally fine with watching what I say in my main persona ( eg , on Facebook ) , provided that I still have the option of anonymity when I need it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Liberty requires that we be able to speak anonymously when we have something important to say.
I'm totally fine with watching what I say in my main persona (eg, on Facebook), provided that I still have the option of anonymity when I need it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730270</id>
	<title>Mark Zuckerberg is an idiot.</title>
	<author>http</author>
	<datestamp>1263210420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because we choose to share some information does not mean we want all information shared, or that we expect that any information about us should be available to anyone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because we choose to share some information does not mean we want all information shared , or that we expect that any information about us should be available to anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because we choose to share some information does not mean we want all information shared, or that we expect that any information about us should be available to anyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742</id>
	<title>Better ads</title>
	<author>psy</author>
	<datestamp>1263208200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What he's saying is it is his customers (advertisers not users) want less privacy, so they can target ads more profitably.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What he 's saying is it is his customers ( advertisers not users ) want less privacy , so they can target ads more profitably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What he's saying is it is his customers (advertisers not users) want less privacy, so they can target ads more profitably.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730522</id>
	<title>Re:Forget privacy ... on Facebook anyway.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263211620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Since it doesn't allow you to distinguish between "work friends" and "party friends" and "closet friends"</p></div></blockquote><p>What you want is compartmentalization of your life. In the days of old, this wasn't so much expected, but these days it is.</p><p>I actually have several facebook accounts. One for goofing off. One for Friends and Family. One for work. And one for my extracurricular activities related to the website run.</p><p>I've specifically created these accounts because of rules and legal ramifications of having them mixed.</p><p>When someone can figure out how to get me a single account, with multiple access controls, then I'll consider using just ONE FB account.</p><p>I can't imaging trying to use Twitter like this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since it does n't allow you to distinguish between " work friends " and " party friends " and " closet friends " What you want is compartmentalization of your life .
In the days of old , this was n't so much expected , but these days it is.I actually have several facebook accounts .
One for goofing off .
One for Friends and Family .
One for work .
And one for my extracurricular activities related to the website run.I 've specifically created these accounts because of rules and legal ramifications of having them mixed.When someone can figure out how to get me a single account , with multiple access controls , then I 'll consider using just ONE FB account.I ca n't imaging trying to use Twitter like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since it doesn't allow you to distinguish between "work friends" and "party friends" and "closet friends"What you want is compartmentalization of your life.
In the days of old, this wasn't so much expected, but these days it is.I actually have several facebook accounts.
One for goofing off.
One for Friends and Family.
One for work.
And one for my extracurricular activities related to the website run.I've specifically created these accounts because of rules and legal ramifications of having them mixed.When someone can figure out how to get me a single account, with multiple access controls, then I'll consider using just ONE FB account.I can't imaging trying to use Twitter like this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731006</id>
	<title>A different perspective</title>
	<author>taucross</author>
	<datestamp>1263214080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Facebook must be treated with the same social protocol as any of the friends in your list. Consider Facebook the most important friend you have on Facebook - the one that reads all your status updates, looks at all your photos, and stalks you constantly.</p><p>If you consider Facebook no more than a passing acquaintance, then this should be reflected in the depth of information you post on it. Mark Zuckerberg has come forward to say - "Be Facebook's best friend!" - and he's entitled to say that. But, as with all strangers, personal discretion should be advised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook must be treated with the same social protocol as any of the friends in your list .
Consider Facebook the most important friend you have on Facebook - the one that reads all your status updates , looks at all your photos , and stalks you constantly.If you consider Facebook no more than a passing acquaintance , then this should be reflected in the depth of information you post on it .
Mark Zuckerberg has come forward to say - " Be Facebook 's best friend !
" - and he 's entitled to say that .
But , as with all strangers , personal discretion should be advised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook must be treated with the same social protocol as any of the friends in your list.
Consider Facebook the most important friend you have on Facebook - the one that reads all your status updates, looks at all your photos, and stalks you constantly.If you consider Facebook no more than a passing acquaintance, then this should be reflected in the depth of information you post on it.
Mark Zuckerberg has come forward to say - "Be Facebook's best friend!
" - and he's entitled to say that.
But, as with all strangers, personal discretion should be advised.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729914</id>
	<title>default to sharing?</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1263208860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not interpreting that the same way, I guess.</p><p>I still choose which photos (etc) to upload and what I comment on, in text.  there is no 'default'.  no camera is always-on; no microphone always on-capture.  nothing auto-creating content from my daily life.</p><p>wtf do you mean 'by default', then?</p><p>fwiw, I do not participate in FB or MS.  I severely limit which forums and blogs I contribute to.  I'm always aware of the decision whether to publish something and under what level of exposure it will get.  there is no 'default'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not interpreting that the same way , I guess.I still choose which photos ( etc ) to upload and what I comment on , in text .
there is no 'default' .
no camera is always-on ; no microphone always on-capture .
nothing auto-creating content from my daily life.wtf do you mean 'by default ' , then ? fwiw , I do not participate in FB or MS. I severely limit which forums and blogs I contribute to .
I 'm always aware of the decision whether to publish something and under what level of exposure it will get .
there is no 'default' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not interpreting that the same way, I guess.I still choose which photos (etc) to upload and what I comment on, in text.
there is no 'default'.
no camera is always-on; no microphone always on-capture.
nothing auto-creating content from my daily life.wtf do you mean 'by default', then?fwiw, I do not participate in FB or MS.  I severely limit which forums and blogs I contribute to.
I'm always aware of the decision whether to publish something and under what level of exposure it will get.
there is no 'default'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730796</id>
	<title>On the Internet...</title>
	<author>Tikkun</author>
	<datestamp>1263213120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No one knows if you're a dog unless you tell them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one knows if you 're a dog unless you tell them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one knows if you're a dog unless you tell them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730906</id>
	<title>Re:Forget privacy ... on Facebook anyway.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263213480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Facebook is designed from the ground up to be nonprivate. Since it doesn't allow you to distinguish between "work friends" and "party friends" and "closet friends"</p></div><p>That's funny, I have about two dozen groups. I have, for example, a group that my under-18 relatives are all in, as well as a group for parents/grandparents who have, let us say, delicate sensibilities. I have work friends, personal friends, random friends, high school friends, and many others. People can be added to multiple groups, and groups can be setup as inclusive or restrictive.</p><p>So go take another toke off of whatever it is you're smoking, the controls are there &amp; in the time it took you to type your flaming troll post you could have set them up. The mods must be hitting off the same crack pipe you are since you managed to get an "Insightful" rating when your post was anything but.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook is designed from the ground up to be nonprivate .
Since it does n't allow you to distinguish between " work friends " and " party friends " and " closet friends " That 's funny , I have about two dozen groups .
I have , for example , a group that my under-18 relatives are all in , as well as a group for parents/grandparents who have , let us say , delicate sensibilities .
I have work friends , personal friends , random friends , high school friends , and many others .
People can be added to multiple groups , and groups can be setup as inclusive or restrictive.So go take another toke off of whatever it is you 're smoking , the controls are there &amp; in the time it took you to type your flaming troll post you could have set them up .
The mods must be hitting off the same crack pipe you are since you managed to get an " Insightful " rating when your post was anything but .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook is designed from the ground up to be nonprivate.
Since it doesn't allow you to distinguish between "work friends" and "party friends" and "closet friends"That's funny, I have about two dozen groups.
I have, for example, a group that my under-18 relatives are all in, as well as a group for parents/grandparents who have, let us say, delicate sensibilities.
I have work friends, personal friends, random friends, high school friends, and many others.
People can be added to multiple groups, and groups can be setup as inclusive or restrictive.So go take another toke off of whatever it is you're smoking, the controls are there &amp; in the time it took you to type your flaming troll post you could have set them up.
The mods must be hitting off the same crack pipe you are since you managed to get an "Insightful" rating when your post was anything but.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732358</id>
	<title>So he'd be OK with publishing stuff about him?</title>
	<author>jsm</author>
	<datestamp>1263222960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm, I seem to recall Eric Schmidt (Google CEO) saying the same thing a few years ago.  However, when someone at CNET published personal info about him that was found only through Google, there was quite an uproar.</p><p>So, I wonder what we can find out about Mark Zuckerberg?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , I seem to recall Eric Schmidt ( Google CEO ) saying the same thing a few years ago .
However , when someone at CNET published personal info about him that was found only through Google , there was quite an uproar.So , I wonder what we can find out about Mark Zuckerberg ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, I seem to recall Eric Schmidt (Google CEO) saying the same thing a few years ago.
However, when someone at CNET published personal info about him that was found only through Google, there was quite an uproar.So, I wonder what we can find out about Mark Zuckerberg?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731050</id>
	<title>Just as well to quote the seat-fillers</title>
	<author>wrencherd</author>
	<datestamp>1263214320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who cares what the face-boy of facebook thinks anyway?</p><p>The most interesting thing about this article is who sponsers the "Crunchies"; namely three web-entities that are little more than gadget-review sites.</p><p>So, it's a ceremony wherein one bunch of black t-shirts gives awards to another group of black t-shirts for getting the most votes from the larger group of black t-shirts inclusive of the first two.  (It's enough to make the Grammys, by comparison, seem like science.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares what the face-boy of facebook thinks anyway ? The most interesting thing about this article is who sponsers the " Crunchies " ; namely three web-entities that are little more than gadget-review sites.So , it 's a ceremony wherein one bunch of black t-shirts gives awards to another group of black t-shirts for getting the most votes from the larger group of black t-shirts inclusive of the first two .
( It 's enough to make the Grammys , by comparison , seem like science .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares what the face-boy of facebook thinks anyway?The most interesting thing about this article is who sponsers the "Crunchies"; namely three web-entities that are little more than gadget-review sites.So, it's a ceremony wherein one bunch of black t-shirts gives awards to another group of black t-shirts for getting the most votes from the larger group of black t-shirts inclusive of the first two.
(It's enough to make the Grammys, by comparison, seem like science.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732162</id>
	<title>Re:Better ads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263221520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to use it and now regret it. Even though I went to 'delete' my account, they said, we'll keep it here for you just in case.<br>This is after the outrage at the change in the ToS allowing them to keep information after an account was deleted and I was under the impression they reversed it. Obviously they found a way around it or I wasn't looking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to use it and now regret it .
Even though I went to 'delete ' my account , they said , we 'll keep it here for you just in case.This is after the outrage at the change in the ToS allowing them to keep information after an account was deleted and I was under the impression they reversed it .
Obviously they found a way around it or I was n't looking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to use it and now regret it.
Even though I went to 'delete' my account, they said, we'll keep it here for you just in case.This is after the outrage at the change in the ToS allowing them to keep information after an account was deleted and I was under the impression they reversed it.
Obviously they found a way around it or I wasn't looking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730714</id>
	<title>That baby-faced sack of hot gas...</title>
	<author>g0at</author>
	<datestamp>1263212700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a douchebag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a douchebag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a douchebag.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731088</id>
	<title>Re:Better ads</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1263214500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If he posted his SSN to Facebook, you would have a point.
<p>
Look at the <i>direct quotes</i> attributed to Zuckerberg in the article.  Ignore the spin of the article, the more extreme spin of the slashdot blurb, and the yet more extreme spin of most of the comments here.  Zuckerberg is not saying that spying is OK or that people should be forced to disclose information.  He is observing that social norms have changed, and more people are choosing to be more public.  I am fine with that, so long as it is voluntary, and the option for privacy remains for those who choose it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If he posted his SSN to Facebook , you would have a point .
Look at the direct quotes attributed to Zuckerberg in the article .
Ignore the spin of the article , the more extreme spin of the slashdot blurb , and the yet more extreme spin of most of the comments here .
Zuckerberg is not saying that spying is OK or that people should be forced to disclose information .
He is observing that social norms have changed , and more people are choosing to be more public .
I am fine with that , so long as it is voluntary , and the option for privacy remains for those who choose it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If he posted his SSN to Facebook, you would have a point.
Look at the direct quotes attributed to Zuckerberg in the article.
Ignore the spin of the article, the more extreme spin of the slashdot blurb, and the yet more extreme spin of most of the comments here.
Zuckerberg is not saying that spying is OK or that people should be forced to disclose information.
He is observing that social norms have changed, and more people are choosing to be more public.
I am fine with that, so long as it is voluntary, and the option for privacy remains for those who choose it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729992</id>
	<title>A little privacy 101 lesson for Zuckerberg</title>
	<author>krou</author>
	<datestamp>1263209220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why Privacy Is Important
</p><ul>
    <li>psychologically, people need private space. This applies in public as well as behind closed doors and drawn curtains. We need to be able to glance around, judge whether the people in the vicinity are a threat, and then perform actions that are potentially embarrassing, such as breaking wind, and jumping for joy;</li><li>sociologically, people need to be free to behave, and to associate with others, subject to broad social mores, but without the continual threat of being observed. Otherwise we reduce ourselves to the appalling, unhuman, constrained context that was imposed on people in countries behind the Iron Curtain and the Bamboo Curtain;</li><li>economically, people need to be free to innovate. International competition is fierce, so countries with high labour-costs need to be clever if they want to sustain their standard-of-living. And cleverness has to be continually reinvented;</li><li>politically, people need to be free to think, and argue, and act. Surveillance chills behaviour and speech, and threatens democracy.</li></ul><p>
-- <a href="http://www.rogerclarke.com/DV/Intro.html#WhyPriv" title="rogerclarke.com">Roger Clarke</a> [rogerclarke.com]</p></div>
</blockquote><blockquote><div><p>Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that&rsquo;s why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.<br>- Bruce Schneir</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why Privacy Is Important psychologically , people need private space .
This applies in public as well as behind closed doors and drawn curtains .
We need to be able to glance around , judge whether the people in the vicinity are a threat , and then perform actions that are potentially embarrassing , such as breaking wind , and jumping for joy ; sociologically , people need to be free to behave , and to associate with others , subject to broad social mores , but without the continual threat of being observed .
Otherwise we reduce ourselves to the appalling , unhuman , constrained context that was imposed on people in countries behind the Iron Curtain and the Bamboo Curtain ; economically , people need to be free to innovate .
International competition is fierce , so countries with high labour-costs need to be clever if they want to sustain their standard-of-living .
And cleverness has to be continually reinvented ; politically , people need to be free to think , and argue , and act .
Surveillance chills behaviour and speech , and threatens democracy .
-- Roger Clarke [ rogerclarke.com ] Tyranny , whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny , is still tyranny .
Liberty requires security without intrusion , security plus privacy .
Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state .
And that    s why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.- Bruce Schneir</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why Privacy Is Important

    psychologically, people need private space.
This applies in public as well as behind closed doors and drawn curtains.
We need to be able to glance around, judge whether the people in the vicinity are a threat, and then perform actions that are potentially embarrassing, such as breaking wind, and jumping for joy;sociologically, people need to be free to behave, and to associate with others, subject to broad social mores, but without the continual threat of being observed.
Otherwise we reduce ourselves to the appalling, unhuman, constrained context that was imposed on people in countries behind the Iron Curtain and the Bamboo Curtain;economically, people need to be free to innovate.
International competition is fierce, so countries with high labour-costs need to be clever if they want to sustain their standard-of-living.
And cleverness has to be continually reinvented;politically, people need to be free to think, and argue, and act.
Surveillance chills behaviour and speech, and threatens democracy.
-- Roger Clarke [rogerclarke.com]
Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny.
Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy.
Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state.
And that’s why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.- Bruce Schneir
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730556</id>
	<title>Missing the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263211740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As far as Facebook is concerned, it's not a matter of privacy, it a matter of $$$.

Look at it this way.

Everyone has their privacy setting turned on.

That means that Google can't index the page.

If Facebook was all of a sudden able to have a bunch of more indexed pages, isn't that more ad revenue for them?

Just a though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as Facebook is concerned , it 's not a matter of privacy , it a matter of $ $ $ .
Look at it this way .
Everyone has their privacy setting turned on .
That means that Google ca n't index the page .
If Facebook was all of a sudden able to have a bunch of more indexed pages , is n't that more ad revenue for them ?
Just a though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as Facebook is concerned, it's not a matter of privacy, it a matter of $$$.
Look at it this way.
Everyone has their privacy setting turned on.
That means that Google can't index the page.
If Facebook was all of a sudden able to have a bunch of more indexed pages, isn't that more ad revenue for them?
Just a though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730168</id>
	<title>Not in general though</title>
	<author>jbb999</author>
	<datestamp>1263209940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a huge difference between a website that you go to for the purpose of communicating widely with people and life in general. Just because you might choose on facebook to share your thoughts with anyone who cares does not in any way imply that's what you want elsewhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a huge difference between a website that you go to for the purpose of communicating widely with people and life in general .
Just because you might choose on facebook to share your thoughts with anyone who cares does not in any way imply that 's what you want elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a huge difference between a website that you go to for the purpose of communicating widely with people and life in general.
Just because you might choose on facebook to share your thoughts with anyone who cares does not in any way imply that's what you want elsewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731884</id>
	<title>Re:Go ahead, Zuckerberg.</title>
	<author>wickerprints</author>
	<datestamp>1263219540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What better time to start than now?</p><p>I left Facebook a long time ago after maintaining a very minimal presence for the sake of my friends.  People continue to ask me if I'm on it and I just simply say no.  I'll give them my email, or other contact information, but all the social media in the world is never going to replace the subtle beauty of real-life contact.  Humans have been socializing long before Facebook, long before the internet.  We would do well to learn the lessons of our history and understand how to use technology to bring us closer, rather than using it as a substitute for genuine interaction because we're all supposedly too busy to make time to do things the right way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What better time to start than now ? I left Facebook a long time ago after maintaining a very minimal presence for the sake of my friends .
People continue to ask me if I 'm on it and I just simply say no .
I 'll give them my email , or other contact information , but all the social media in the world is never going to replace the subtle beauty of real-life contact .
Humans have been socializing long before Facebook , long before the internet .
We would do well to learn the lessons of our history and understand how to use technology to bring us closer , rather than using it as a substitute for genuine interaction because we 're all supposedly too busy to make time to do things the right way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What better time to start than now?I left Facebook a long time ago after maintaining a very minimal presence for the sake of my friends.
People continue to ask me if I'm on it and I just simply say no.
I'll give them my email, or other contact information, but all the social media in the world is never going to replace the subtle beauty of real-life contact.
Humans have been socializing long before Facebook, long before the internet.
We would do well to learn the lessons of our history and understand how to use technology to bring us closer, rather than using it as a substitute for genuine interaction because we're all supposedly too busy to make time to do things the right way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733008</id>
	<title>Re:In a sense, he's right.</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1263228420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Information wants to be free.</p></div><p>I can't find it (I bet it's in this thread), but I read a comment on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. recently which was essentially:<br>
"Information can't want anything.  <i>People</i> want to be free from tyranny.  Privacy is necessary for this."  Anyone know the originating quote/comment?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Information wants to be free.I ca n't find it ( I bet it 's in this thread ) , but I read a comment on / .
recently which was essentially : " Information ca n't want anything .
People want to be free from tyranny .
Privacy is necessary for this .
" Anyone know the originating quote/comment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Information wants to be free.I can't find it (I bet it's in this thread), but I read a comment on /.
recently which was essentially:
"Information can't want anything.
People want to be free from tyranny.
Privacy is necessary for this.
"  Anyone know the originating quote/comment?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30734538</id>
	<title>Dear Mark Zuckerberg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263289620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731802</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, there are new norms ...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263219060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rules are not global. Laws are not global. And they will never be.<br>Even if I will be the last person on earth, and it&rsquo;s about life and death. Privacy is a norm in what I define as my social circle. You lose the norm? Then go fuck yourself.<br>And right now we are faaar away from that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rules are not global .
Laws are not global .
And they will never be.Even if I will be the last person on earth , and it    s about life and death .
Privacy is a norm in what I define as my social circle .
You lose the norm ?
Then go fuck yourself.And right now we are faaar away from that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rules are not global.
Laws are not global.
And they will never be.Even if I will be the last person on earth, and it’s about life and death.
Privacy is a norm in what I define as my social circle.
You lose the norm?
Then go fuck yourself.And right now we are faaar away from that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729862</id>
	<title>Ummm. Nooo</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1263208620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YOU* Defaulted US to share, not that we CHOSE to. I'm sure had you prompted each individual how private they want their settings when they first signed up, a lot of people would have chosen Friends, or friends of friends, or at least to a specific network (Like the local university).</p><p>In fact, You** semi tried doing so not too long ago, and as I recall, A LOT of people then locked their photos and status updates to friends only. I know I did, and about 99\% of my friends list did, and when I facebook search someone I met at a party, I have to grab a friend invite before I see anything besides their name and profile pic.</p><p>You can't just set it up so that sharing is the norm, and when people use your product, then claim that its what is expected.</p><p>*If not You Mark, then whoever is running Facebook Right now.<br>**Subjective as above</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YOU * Defaulted US to share , not that we CHOSE to .
I 'm sure had you prompted each individual how private they want their settings when they first signed up , a lot of people would have chosen Friends , or friends of friends , or at least to a specific network ( Like the local university ) .In fact , You * * semi tried doing so not too long ago , and as I recall , A LOT of people then locked their photos and status updates to friends only .
I know I did , and about 99 \ % of my friends list did , and when I facebook search someone I met at a party , I have to grab a friend invite before I see anything besides their name and profile pic.You ca n't just set it up so that sharing is the norm , and when people use your product , then claim that its what is expected .
* If not You Mark , then whoever is running Facebook Right now .
* * Subjective as above</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YOU* Defaulted US to share, not that we CHOSE to.
I'm sure had you prompted each individual how private they want their settings when they first signed up, a lot of people would have chosen Friends, or friends of friends, or at least to a specific network (Like the local university).In fact, You** semi tried doing so not too long ago, and as I recall, A LOT of people then locked their photos and status updates to friends only.
I know I did, and about 99\% of my friends list did, and when I facebook search someone I met at a party, I have to grab a friend invite before I see anything besides their name and profile pic.You can't just set it up so that sharing is the norm, and when people use your product, then claim that its what is expected.
*If not You Mark, then whoever is running Facebook Right now.
**Subjective as above</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731198</id>
	<title>Re:Better ads</title>
	<author>fyngyrz</author>
	<datestamp>1263215160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>
They [users] are not the ones shelling the dollars over to FB.
</i></p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Yes, in fact, they are. Facebook users give money to the advertisers, and the advertisers, in turn, give a portion of that back to Facebook. Any advertiser that gives money to Facebook and doesn't get more than that from Facebook users doesn't do it for long, I assure you. If Facebook mistreats its users, this will directly affect its income stream. Likewise, if it serves them well, that will also affect its income stream.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They [ users ] are not the ones shelling the dollars over to FB .
Yes , in fact , they are .
Facebook users give money to the advertisers , and the advertisers , in turn , give a portion of that back to Facebook .
Any advertiser that gives money to Facebook and does n't get more than that from Facebook users does n't do it for long , I assure you .
If Facebook mistreats its users , this will directly affect its income stream .
Likewise , if it serves them well , that will also affect its income stream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
They [users] are not the ones shelling the dollars over to FB.
Yes, in fact, they are.
Facebook users give money to the advertisers, and the advertisers, in turn, give a portion of that back to Facebook.
Any advertiser that gives money to Facebook and doesn't get more than that from Facebook users doesn't do it for long, I assure you.
If Facebook mistreats its users, this will directly affect its income stream.
Likewise, if it serves them well, that will also affect its income stream.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732034</id>
	<title>Re:The look at me era</title>
	<author>JAlexoi</author>
	<datestamp>1263220500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How did you get from lack of privacy to tyranny, I have NO idea!<br>
Usually privacy goes after tyranny has established itself(reference to all authoritarian and totalitarian states starting from 20th century), not the other way around. And even then, privacy tends to skyrocket when tyranny establishes itself(again ref to totalitarian states in the 20th century).<br>
Lack of privacy is created by "trust" and tyranny destroys all trust and spreads fear.<br>
Something tells me that neither you nor your parents lived in a totalitarian state.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How did you get from lack of privacy to tyranny , I have NO idea !
Usually privacy goes after tyranny has established itself ( reference to all authoritarian and totalitarian states starting from 20th century ) , not the other way around .
And even then , privacy tends to skyrocket when tyranny establishes itself ( again ref to totalitarian states in the 20th century ) .
Lack of privacy is created by " trust " and tyranny destroys all trust and spreads fear .
Something tells me that neither you nor your parents lived in a totalitarian state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did you get from lack of privacy to tyranny, I have NO idea!
Usually privacy goes after tyranny has established itself(reference to all authoritarian and totalitarian states starting from 20th century), not the other way around.
And even then, privacy tends to skyrocket when tyranny establishes itself(again ref to totalitarian states in the 20th century).
Lack of privacy is created by "trust" and tyranny destroys all trust and spreads fear.
Something tells me that neither you nor your parents lived in a totalitarian state.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729886</id>
	<title>Forget privacy ... on Facebook anyway.</title>
	<author>goodmanj</author>
	<datestamp>1263208740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Facebook is designed from the ground up to be nonprivate.  Since it doesn't allow you to distinguish between "work friends" and "party friends" and "closet friends", anyone with a brain will only post lowest-common-denominator acceptable comments to FB.  If everyone is treating Facebook that way, there's no benefit to be gained by adding privacy to interactions that are already self-sanitized.</p><p>But there are *plenty* of social interactions that *do* require an expectation of privacy, ranging from private sexual lives to the mere fact that I don't want my work colleagues to know about my Warcraft friends, or vice versa.  But Zuckerberg doesn't see these sides of people, because they're not on Facebook.</p><p>Jumping from "Facebook interactions don't need privacy" to "our society doesn't need privacy" is a fallacy of composition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook is designed from the ground up to be nonprivate .
Since it does n't allow you to distinguish between " work friends " and " party friends " and " closet friends " , anyone with a brain will only post lowest-common-denominator acceptable comments to FB .
If everyone is treating Facebook that way , there 's no benefit to be gained by adding privacy to interactions that are already self-sanitized.But there are * plenty * of social interactions that * do * require an expectation of privacy , ranging from private sexual lives to the mere fact that I do n't want my work colleagues to know about my Warcraft friends , or vice versa .
But Zuckerberg does n't see these sides of people , because they 're not on Facebook.Jumping from " Facebook interactions do n't need privacy " to " our society does n't need privacy " is a fallacy of composition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook is designed from the ground up to be nonprivate.
Since it doesn't allow you to distinguish between "work friends" and "party friends" and "closet friends", anyone with a brain will only post lowest-common-denominator acceptable comments to FB.
If everyone is treating Facebook that way, there's no benefit to be gained by adding privacy to interactions that are already self-sanitized.But there are *plenty* of social interactions that *do* require an expectation of privacy, ranging from private sexual lives to the mere fact that I don't want my work colleagues to know about my Warcraft friends, or vice versa.
But Zuckerberg doesn't see these sides of people, because they're not on Facebook.Jumping from "Facebook interactions don't need privacy" to "our society doesn't need privacy" is a fallacy of composition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729796</id>
	<title>The new social contract</title>
	<author>dyfet</author>
	<datestamp>1263208380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whatever you have ever said or done will continue to be used against you for the rest of your life.  That is the world this kind of thinking creates.  It creates fear to think or act.  Privacy is ultimately about liberty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever you have ever said or done will continue to be used against you for the rest of your life .
That is the world this kind of thinking creates .
It creates fear to think or act .
Privacy is ultimately about liberty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever you have ever said or done will continue to be used against you for the rest of your life.
That is the world this kind of thinking creates.
It creates fear to think or act.
Privacy is ultimately about liberty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732718</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, there are new norms ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263226080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Privacy is no longer a social norm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...". I suppose that's correct. Stupidity and ignorance have replaced it</p></div></blockquote><p><em>Replaced</em> it?</p><p>Sorry, but being stupid <em>is</em> the norm, has been all the way back to the Ancient Greeks and probably before. It is only the weirdos who bother to question the status-quo that notice this stuff.</p><p>I don't find this all that depressing since it at least shows that we aren't regressing so much as the technology makes the existing flaws more obvious. You always have a choice though, the technology to track everyone doesn't exist and won't, you can always go off the grid and have minimal contact with society at large.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Privacy is no longer a social norm ... " .
I suppose that 's correct .
Stupidity and ignorance have replaced itReplaced it ? Sorry , but being stupid is the norm , has been all the way back to the Ancient Greeks and probably before .
It is only the weirdos who bother to question the status-quo that notice this stuff.I do n't find this all that depressing since it at least shows that we are n't regressing so much as the technology makes the existing flaws more obvious .
You always have a choice though , the technology to track everyone does n't exist and wo n't , you can always go off the grid and have minimal contact with society at large .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Privacy is no longer a social norm ...".
I suppose that's correct.
Stupidity and ignorance have replaced itReplaced it?Sorry, but being stupid is the norm, has been all the way back to the Ancient Greeks and probably before.
It is only the weirdos who bother to question the status-quo that notice this stuff.I don't find this all that depressing since it at least shows that we aren't regressing so much as the technology makes the existing flaws more obvious.
You always have a choice though, the technology to track everyone doesn't exist and won't, you can always go off the grid and have minimal contact with society at large.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731022</id>
	<title>what he's also saying is that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263214200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...they are having trouble with positive cash flow, and can only barely scrape by before investors pullout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...they are having trouble with positive cash flow , and can only barely scrape by before investors pullout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...they are having trouble with positive cash flow, and can only barely scrape by before investors pullout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732784</id>
	<title>Re:Better ads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263226440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who cares what he says... he's just a programmer that copied myspace. He really shouldn't be in a position were he decides the privacy (or anything else) of other people. (p.s. myspace also copied someone else)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares what he says... he 's just a programmer that copied myspace .
He really should n't be in a position were he decides the privacy ( or anything else ) of other people .
( p.s. myspace also copied someone else )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares what he says... he's just a programmer that copied myspace.
He really shouldn't be in a position were he decides the privacy (or anything else) of other people.
(p.s. myspace also copied someone else)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730434</id>
	<title>Re:Put your money where your mouth is, bitch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263211140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mark only shares some of his profile information with everyone.</p><p>About Me: i'm trying to make the world a more open place.</p><p>what a fuck wad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mark only shares some of his profile information with everyone.About Me : i 'm trying to make the world a more open place.what a fuck wad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mark only shares some of his profile information with everyone.About Me: i'm trying to make the world a more open place.what a fuck wad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730504</id>
	<title>Re:The look at me era</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263211500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Joe sixpack has nothing to worry about if he sends a photograph of his genitals to some random website.  That is not really where the privacy problems of Facebook come up.<br> <br>

We are guaranteed the right to privacy to protect us from the government.  Tyranny cannot exist when the government cannot pry open arbitrary aspects of the lives of the citizens -- tyrannical laws cannot be enforced if people can simply hide their activities. Unfortunately, this interpretation of privacy rights has been largely forgotten, and most people now think of privacy rights as a protection for criminals, if they even bother to think about their rights at all.<br> <br>

However, the law can only grant rights to the people; nobody can be forced to exercise them.  These days, fewer and fewer people are bothering to keep any part of their lives private, and they are not stopping to think about the implications of mass numbers of people abandoning their rights.  Worse, even those who do want privacy are finding it harder and harder to maintain, as their friends often post information online that they would not have posted themselves.<br> <br>

Facebook by its very design worsens the situation.  Facebook is designed not just to collect data, but also metadata which allows our privacy to be violated in an entirely new way.  Information about our lives can be deduced from the metadata that Facebook is collecting, even information that we did not deliberately post to Facebook.  It is possible to categorize not just who is friends with whom, but how close that friendship is, and in some cases even more details about the nature of friendship can be obtained.  This information has never been truly secret of course, but Facebook is amassing it all, allowing the information to be accessed with ease and without arousing suspicious:  whereas it once required a detective to infiltrate a social circle to extract this data, it can now be accessed without any field work.<br> <br>

No, Facebook on its own will not lead to tyranny.  It is the general trend, of which Facebook is not just a major enabler, but which Facebook is actively encouraging, that is the problem here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Joe sixpack has nothing to worry about if he sends a photograph of his genitals to some random website .
That is not really where the privacy problems of Facebook come up .
We are guaranteed the right to privacy to protect us from the government .
Tyranny can not exist when the government can not pry open arbitrary aspects of the lives of the citizens -- tyrannical laws can not be enforced if people can simply hide their activities .
Unfortunately , this interpretation of privacy rights has been largely forgotten , and most people now think of privacy rights as a protection for criminals , if they even bother to think about their rights at all .
However , the law can only grant rights to the people ; nobody can be forced to exercise them .
These days , fewer and fewer people are bothering to keep any part of their lives private , and they are not stopping to think about the implications of mass numbers of people abandoning their rights .
Worse , even those who do want privacy are finding it harder and harder to maintain , as their friends often post information online that they would not have posted themselves .
Facebook by its very design worsens the situation .
Facebook is designed not just to collect data , but also metadata which allows our privacy to be violated in an entirely new way .
Information about our lives can be deduced from the metadata that Facebook is collecting , even information that we did not deliberately post to Facebook .
It is possible to categorize not just who is friends with whom , but how close that friendship is , and in some cases even more details about the nature of friendship can be obtained .
This information has never been truly secret of course , but Facebook is amassing it all , allowing the information to be accessed with ease and without arousing suspicious : whereas it once required a detective to infiltrate a social circle to extract this data , it can now be accessed without any field work .
No , Facebook on its own will not lead to tyranny .
It is the general trend , of which Facebook is not just a major enabler , but which Facebook is actively encouraging , that is the problem here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Joe sixpack has nothing to worry about if he sends a photograph of his genitals to some random website.
That is not really where the privacy problems of Facebook come up.
We are guaranteed the right to privacy to protect us from the government.
Tyranny cannot exist when the government cannot pry open arbitrary aspects of the lives of the citizens -- tyrannical laws cannot be enforced if people can simply hide their activities.
Unfortunately, this interpretation of privacy rights has been largely forgotten, and most people now think of privacy rights as a protection for criminals, if they even bother to think about their rights at all.
However, the law can only grant rights to the people; nobody can be forced to exercise them.
These days, fewer and fewer people are bothering to keep any part of their lives private, and they are not stopping to think about the implications of mass numbers of people abandoning their rights.
Worse, even those who do want privacy are finding it harder and harder to maintain, as their friends often post information online that they would not have posted themselves.
Facebook by its very design worsens the situation.
Facebook is designed not just to collect data, but also metadata which allows our privacy to be violated in an entirely new way.
Information about our lives can be deduced from the metadata that Facebook is collecting, even information that we did not deliberately post to Facebook.
It is possible to categorize not just who is friends with whom, but how close that friendship is, and in some cases even more details about the nature of friendship can be obtained.
This information has never been truly secret of course, but Facebook is amassing it all, allowing the information to be accessed with ease and without arousing suspicious:  whereas it once required a detective to infiltrate a social circle to extract this data, it can now be accessed without any field work.
No, Facebook on its own will not lead to tyranny.
It is the general trend, of which Facebook is not just a major enabler, but which Facebook is actively encouraging, that is the problem here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730958</id>
	<title>Re:Better ads</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1263213840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well given the quality of facebook's ads, the problem isn't the lack of privacy, it's the inability to leverage the info they already have.  For example, they serve gay dating ads to straight men.  That's just full of fail.</p><p>They have smart guys working there.  I know.  I know some.  However Mark Zuck is a child that doesn't know how to leverage what he has.  He is leaving so much money on the table, it isn't even funny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well given the quality of facebook 's ads , the problem is n't the lack of privacy , it 's the inability to leverage the info they already have .
For example , they serve gay dating ads to straight men .
That 's just full of fail.They have smart guys working there .
I know .
I know some .
However Mark Zuck is a child that does n't know how to leverage what he has .
He is leaving so much money on the table , it is n't even funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well given the quality of facebook's ads, the problem isn't the lack of privacy, it's the inability to leverage the info they already have.
For example, they serve gay dating ads to straight men.
That's just full of fail.They have smart guys working there.
I know.
I know some.
However Mark Zuck is a child that doesn't know how to leverage what he has.
He is leaving so much money on the table, it isn't even funny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730250</id>
	<title>WTF is going on in San Francisco?</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1263210360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh...."Crunchie Awards?"  What the hell is up with the names these days?  Do I <i>really</i> want to know what they're awarding deep in the bowels of San Francisco with this one?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh.... " Crunchie Awards ?
" What the hell is up with the names these days ?
Do I really want to know what they 're awarding deep in the bowels of San Francisco with this one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh...."Crunchie Awards?
"  What the hell is up with the names these days?
Do I really want to know what they're awarding deep in the bowels of San Francisco with this one?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731032</id>
	<title>Re:Better ads</title>
	<author>coxymla</author>
	<datestamp>1263214260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One problem is that it doesn't matter whether you yourself use Facebook, or whether you put any details up on their. If any of your friends use it, then potentially private info about yourself (your email address, full name, probable friends and acquaintances, pictures tagged with the location of your face,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...) is up there whether you like it or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One problem is that it does n't matter whether you yourself use Facebook , or whether you put any details up on their .
If any of your friends use it , then potentially private info about yourself ( your email address , full name , probable friends and acquaintances , pictures tagged with the location of your face , ... ) is up there whether you like it or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One problem is that it doesn't matter whether you yourself use Facebook, or whether you put any details up on their.
If any of your friends use it, then potentially private info about yourself (your email address, full name, probable friends and acquaintances, pictures tagged with the location of your face, ...) is up there whether you like it or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729950</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy: Good for me, bad for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263208980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't he make a show of releasing this facebook page showing him doing a bunch of stupid but innocuous things? I just assumed it was put together to help him make this case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't he make a show of releasing this facebook page showing him doing a bunch of stupid but innocuous things ?
I just assumed it was put together to help him make this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't he make a show of releasing this facebook page showing him doing a bunch of stupid but innocuous things?
I just assumed it was put together to help him make this case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732054</id>
	<title>If you don't like it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263220560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can leave.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/thread</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can leave .
/thread</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can leave.
/thread</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730034</id>
	<title>Re:The look at me era</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263209400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right now I've got a GPS device in my pocket capable of broadcasting a huge amount of data about me, tracking where Im going, who I speak to. The guys who sold me it also provide the Internet to my house, which accounts for a huge amount of my economic activity. When I'm not driving in my GPS tracked car I'm using public transport with my MiFare smart card which not only tracks loads of information about what my travel patterns are. Aside from government systems all my vital statistics are stored in an instantly retrievable way by at least 20 different companies, that I know about. My entire credit history can be checked for next to nothing in an instant. A profile of my genome has been created, and several medical institutions literally hold enough of my most personal information to technologically create a 'me 2.0'. Who the hell needs barcodes.

My point? Life is a whole heap better for most young people in the developed world than for their parents at a similar age. Life is better, and privacy is diminished. Considering the pattern recognition that humans are so famed for, it is any wonder that they are starting to have trouble seeing the value of making information private by default.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now I 've got a GPS device in my pocket capable of broadcasting a huge amount of data about me , tracking where Im going , who I speak to .
The guys who sold me it also provide the Internet to my house , which accounts for a huge amount of my economic activity .
When I 'm not driving in my GPS tracked car I 'm using public transport with my MiFare smart card which not only tracks loads of information about what my travel patterns are .
Aside from government systems all my vital statistics are stored in an instantly retrievable way by at least 20 different companies , that I know about .
My entire credit history can be checked for next to nothing in an instant .
A profile of my genome has been created , and several medical institutions literally hold enough of my most personal information to technologically create a 'me 2.0' .
Who the hell needs barcodes .
My point ?
Life is a whole heap better for most young people in the developed world than for their parents at a similar age .
Life is better , and privacy is diminished .
Considering the pattern recognition that humans are so famed for , it is any wonder that they are starting to have trouble seeing the value of making information private by default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now I've got a GPS device in my pocket capable of broadcasting a huge amount of data about me, tracking where Im going, who I speak to.
The guys who sold me it also provide the Internet to my house, which accounts for a huge amount of my economic activity.
When I'm not driving in my GPS tracked car I'm using public transport with my MiFare smart card which not only tracks loads of information about what my travel patterns are.
Aside from government systems all my vital statistics are stored in an instantly retrievable way by at least 20 different companies, that I know about.
My entire credit history can be checked for next to nothing in an instant.
A profile of my genome has been created, and several medical institutions literally hold enough of my most personal information to technologically create a 'me 2.0'.
Who the hell needs barcodes.
My point?
Life is a whole heap better for most young people in the developed world than for their parents at a similar age.
Life is better, and privacy is diminished.
Considering the pattern recognition that humans are so famed for, it is any wonder that they are starting to have trouble seeing the value of making information private by default.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730594</id>
	<title>Seeing all women naked is the social norm!</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1263211980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Women at Spring Break, Mardis Gras, Rock Concerts, and motorcycle rallies often expose their breasts, and more, your honor.  You can't put me in jail for peeking into this woman's shower.  Clearly woman don't have any expectation of privacy.  Haven't you heard.  Because some people choose to do it sometime, it is now the social norm!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Women at Spring Break , Mardis Gras , Rock Concerts , and motorcycle rallies often expose their breasts , and more , your honor .
You ca n't put me in jail for peeking into this woman 's shower .
Clearly woman do n't have any expectation of privacy .
Have n't you heard .
Because some people choose to do it sometime , it is now the social norm !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Women at Spring Break, Mardis Gras, Rock Concerts, and motorcycle rallies often expose their breasts, and more, your honor.
You can't put me in jail for peeking into this woman's shower.
Clearly woman don't have any expectation of privacy.
Haven't you heard.
Because some people choose to do it sometime, it is now the social norm!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733264</id>
	<title>Flat out wrong</title>
	<author>FrozenGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1263230460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because a small subset of the population holds privacy in no regard does not mean that the population as a whole, or even a majority of the population, does likewise.  Among my adult friends, very very few bother with online social networking and the vast majority consider their privacy something to be cherished.<br> <br>DO NOT mistake something popular among the young to be the norm.<br> <br>We can certainly protect the individual right to privacy while providing for the right of the individual to abrogate his own privacy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because a small subset of the population holds privacy in no regard does not mean that the population as a whole , or even a majority of the population , does likewise .
Among my adult friends , very very few bother with online social networking and the vast majority consider their privacy something to be cherished .
DO NOT mistake something popular among the young to be the norm .
We can certainly protect the individual right to privacy while providing for the right of the individual to abrogate his own privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because a small subset of the population holds privacy in no regard does not mean that the population as a whole, or even a majority of the population, does likewise.
Among my adult friends, very very few bother with online social networking and the vast majority consider their privacy something to be cherished.
DO NOT mistake something popular among the young to be the norm.
We can certainly protect the individual right to privacy while providing for the right of the individual to abrogate his own privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732488</id>
	<title>Re:The look at me era</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263224160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, we rights that are granted by government are no rights at all [see Thomas Paine's Rights of Men].  I believe the phrase I read in a certain obscure document was "...endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...".  Similarly, tyranny is not checked by limitations on government, but rather by a willingness to water the tree of liberty when necessary.  Tyranny cannot develop unless the public is unwilling to resist it (with the use of force if necessary).</p><p>We have the right to pivacy, but are not required to keep things private should we wish to publicize our most recent Darwinian act.  By nature, any party with knowledge is able to disseminate that knowledge further, so any expectation of privacy relies on the consent of the other involved parties/limits of their truthfulness.</p><p>Philosophy aside, your fears of data/metadata aggregation are exaggerated.  Such analysis suffers from the common statistical problem of garbage in -&gt; garbage out.  Researchers analyzing cliques or near cliques within social networks are limited by the inherent flaws in the underlying data.  Currently a number of graph theorists often consider edges missing from cliques to be missing in error rather than reflecting deliberate differences within cliques or the overlap of distinct cliques, similarly, there is nothing inherent in the connections to weight how important membership in one clique is relative to another.  While some measures of wall post/comment frequency could provide more information, you are left with many factors to normalize.  What is the level of appeal of a given friend's posts in triggering comments, are they close enough to warrant messaging/chat instead?  Are wall posts or messages more personal for this individual?  These variations put severe limits on the level of analyzing the general populace.  If the government sought to target an individual and were willing to substantially investigate those within 2-degrees (probably 4,000+ for many individuals) they could get some insight, but their time and effort would be better spent with a few private investigators.</p><p>For example, there is an app going around at the moment that purports to identify who your closest friends are based on your facebook data, the results of which are about as informative as the "which Harry Potter house are you"? quizzes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , we rights that are granted by government are no rights at all [ see Thomas Paine 's Rights of Men ] .
I believe the phrase I read in a certain obscure document was " ...endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights... " .
Similarly , tyranny is not checked by limitations on government , but rather by a willingness to water the tree of liberty when necessary .
Tyranny can not develop unless the public is unwilling to resist it ( with the use of force if necessary ) .We have the right to pivacy , but are not required to keep things private should we wish to publicize our most recent Darwinian act .
By nature , any party with knowledge is able to disseminate that knowledge further , so any expectation of privacy relies on the consent of the other involved parties/limits of their truthfulness.Philosophy aside , your fears of data/metadata aggregation are exaggerated .
Such analysis suffers from the common statistical problem of garbage in - &gt; garbage out .
Researchers analyzing cliques or near cliques within social networks are limited by the inherent flaws in the underlying data .
Currently a number of graph theorists often consider edges missing from cliques to be missing in error rather than reflecting deliberate differences within cliques or the overlap of distinct cliques , similarly , there is nothing inherent in the connections to weight how important membership in one clique is relative to another .
While some measures of wall post/comment frequency could provide more information , you are left with many factors to normalize .
What is the level of appeal of a given friend 's posts in triggering comments , are they close enough to warrant messaging/chat instead ?
Are wall posts or messages more personal for this individual ?
These variations put severe limits on the level of analyzing the general populace .
If the government sought to target an individual and were willing to substantially investigate those within 2-degrees ( probably 4,000 + for many individuals ) they could get some insight , but their time and effort would be better spent with a few private investigators.For example , there is an app going around at the moment that purports to identify who your closest friends are based on your facebook data , the results of which are about as informative as the " which Harry Potter house are you " ?
quizzes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, we rights that are granted by government are no rights at all [see Thomas Paine's Rights of Men].
I believe the phrase I read in a certain obscure document was "...endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...".
Similarly, tyranny is not checked by limitations on government, but rather by a willingness to water the tree of liberty when necessary.
Tyranny cannot develop unless the public is unwilling to resist it (with the use of force if necessary).We have the right to pivacy, but are not required to keep things private should we wish to publicize our most recent Darwinian act.
By nature, any party with knowledge is able to disseminate that knowledge further, so any expectation of privacy relies on the consent of the other involved parties/limits of their truthfulness.Philosophy aside, your fears of data/metadata aggregation are exaggerated.
Such analysis suffers from the common statistical problem of garbage in -&gt; garbage out.
Researchers analyzing cliques or near cliques within social networks are limited by the inherent flaws in the underlying data.
Currently a number of graph theorists often consider edges missing from cliques to be missing in error rather than reflecting deliberate differences within cliques or the overlap of distinct cliques, similarly, there is nothing inherent in the connections to weight how important membership in one clique is relative to another.
While some measures of wall post/comment frequency could provide more information, you are left with many factors to normalize.
What is the level of appeal of a given friend's posts in triggering comments, are they close enough to warrant messaging/chat instead?
Are wall posts or messages more personal for this individual?
These variations put severe limits on the level of analyzing the general populace.
If the government sought to target an individual and were willing to substantially investigate those within 2-degrees (probably 4,000+ for many individuals) they could get some insight, but their time and effort would be better spent with a few private investigators.For example, there is an app going around at the moment that purports to identify who your closest friends are based on your facebook data, the results of which are about as informative as the "which Harry Potter house are you"?
quizzes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730440</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe, rather than privacy, it's time to forget</title>
	<author>dunezone</author>
	<datestamp>1263211200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>My account sits active with 2 photos, no applications, and the minimum personal information required.
<br>
<br>
I use it to find family members and friends I need to get in contact with and also for event invitations which I think is its strongest value.
<br>
<br>
Now why does this make me special? It doesn't, its the fact that the majority of my friends who used to have bucket loads of information, photos, and applications have since gone to a skeleton account like me. This makes us a loss, we bring no value to the site. The more and more people who do this, the lower the value of Facebook.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My account sits active with 2 photos , no applications , and the minimum personal information required .
I use it to find family members and friends I need to get in contact with and also for event invitations which I think is its strongest value .
Now why does this make me special ?
It does n't , its the fact that the majority of my friends who used to have bucket loads of information , photos , and applications have since gone to a skeleton account like me .
This makes us a loss , we bring no value to the site .
The more and more people who do this , the lower the value of Facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My account sits active with 2 photos, no applications, and the minimum personal information required.
I use it to find family members and friends I need to get in contact with and also for event invitations which I think is its strongest value.
Now why does this make me special?
It doesn't, its the fact that the majority of my friends who used to have bucket loads of information, photos, and applications have since gone to a skeleton account like me.
This makes us a loss, we bring no value to the site.
The more and more people who do this, the lower the value of Facebook.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733114</id>
	<title>The Solution Is Simple</title>
	<author>bcam360</author>
	<datestamp>1263229140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This particular problem (privacy in the use of Facebook and all other social networking sites) can be easily solved by people not posting anything that you don't want to reveal in a public forum that you don't own and can easily be made available to any and everyone. That's all...</htmltext>
<tokenext>This particular problem ( privacy in the use of Facebook and all other social networking sites ) can be easily solved by people not posting anything that you do n't want to reveal in a public forum that you do n't own and can easily be made available to any and everyone .
That 's all.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This particular problem (privacy in the use of Facebook and all other social networking sites) can be easily solved by people not posting anything that you don't want to reveal in a public forum that you don't own and can easily be made available to any and everyone.
That's all...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730538</id>
	<title>Re:Better ads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263211680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, but if you use Facebook, you have no expectation of privacy. Anything and everything you put into Facebook should be considered public knowledge. This is why I do not use Facebook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but if you use Facebook , you have no expectation of privacy .
Anything and everything you put into Facebook should be considered public knowledge .
This is why I do not use Facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but if you use Facebook, you have no expectation of privacy.
Anything and everything you put into Facebook should be considered public knowledge.
This is why I do not use Facebook.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730058</id>
	<title>On the internet.</title>
	<author>hyperion2010</author>
	<datestamp>1263209460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats all well and good Mark, but see there is this little problem, which is that 99\% of all governments in the world (and probably 90\% of all users on the internet) cant distinguish Internet from IRL and in fact are actively pushing them together in ways which should be quite alarming to long time net users.  Lack of privacy would be fine if the government couldnt punish you for it, but they can.  Every single legal system extant today has not sufficiently dealt with the realities of cheap and fast information, they were all constructed over hundreds (some times thousands for those of you living in countries following in the tradition of Roman law and Cannon law) of years where the basic assumption was the certain physical facts about the universe protected individuals from each other and from their government.  That is no longer the case, and until it is we should all be very very cautious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats all well and good Mark , but see there is this little problem , which is that 99 \ % of all governments in the world ( and probably 90 \ % of all users on the internet ) cant distinguish Internet from IRL and in fact are actively pushing them together in ways which should be quite alarming to long time net users .
Lack of privacy would be fine if the government couldnt punish you for it , but they can .
Every single legal system extant today has not sufficiently dealt with the realities of cheap and fast information , they were all constructed over hundreds ( some times thousands for those of you living in countries following in the tradition of Roman law and Cannon law ) of years where the basic assumption was the certain physical facts about the universe protected individuals from each other and from their government .
That is no longer the case , and until it is we should all be very very cautious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats all well and good Mark, but see there is this little problem, which is that 99\% of all governments in the world (and probably 90\% of all users on the internet) cant distinguish Internet from IRL and in fact are actively pushing them together in ways which should be quite alarming to long time net users.
Lack of privacy would be fine if the government couldnt punish you for it, but they can.
Every single legal system extant today has not sufficiently dealt with the realities of cheap and fast information, they were all constructed over hundreds (some times thousands for those of you living in countries following in the tradition of Roman law and Cannon law) of years where the basic assumption was the certain physical facts about the universe protected individuals from each other and from their government.
That is no longer the case, and until it is we should all be very very cautious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731222</id>
	<title>Re:Better ads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263215340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just (about 1.5 wks) quit (did the "online personality suicide" thing) on MySpace/Facebook/Twitter. It's the nincompoop comments like Zuckerberg's about "it's not private networking" that confirm My Choice was right. I have so much more Free time now, without checking Facebook statuses, it's great!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just ( about 1.5 wks ) quit ( did the " online personality suicide " thing ) on MySpace/Facebook/Twitter .
It 's the nincompoop comments like Zuckerberg 's about " it 's not private networking " that confirm My Choice was right .
I have so much more Free time now , without checking Facebook statuses , it 's great !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just (about 1.5 wks) quit (did the "online personality suicide" thing) on MySpace/Facebook/Twitter.
It's the nincompoop comments like Zuckerberg's about "it's not private networking" that confirm My Choice was right.
I have so much more Free time now, without checking Facebook statuses, it's great!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730478</id>
	<title>Re:A very self-serving claim.</title>
	<author>zullnero</author>
	<datestamp>1263211380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or you could look at it this way...it might just be the sort of thing people need to force a real debate in the legal community about how the law needs to adapt to the Internet.  Right now, the legal community will all agree that something needs to be done...but you're split between people who think that a Facebook status update should be admissible as a confession to a crime in court, and people who think that it should just be governed by the same laws as phones are and desperately hope they can retire before people demand they make a real decision.
<br> <br>
As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to see some real clear lines drawn about what the government, law enforcement, and employers can do with information, and maybe even some laws that force social networking sites to provide logs to users of who accessed their information and when so that they can properly defend themselves in court.  I'd like to see a day come when employers realize that it just isn't worth risking a lawsuit by doing web searches to see what a prospective employee is up to...and besides, here's a shocker...people LIE about their personal lives, all the time...sometimes to try and convince their friends that they live exciting lives.  That information can't be relied upon at any time as a measure of any sort.  But I don't see that change in how we deal with the Internet happening as long as people keep deluding themselves into thinking that by checking a box and clicking a button, they're rendering all their info "private".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you could look at it this way...it might just be the sort of thing people need to force a real debate in the legal community about how the law needs to adapt to the Internet .
Right now , the legal community will all agree that something needs to be done...but you 're split between people who think that a Facebook status update should be admissible as a confession to a crime in court , and people who think that it should just be governed by the same laws as phones are and desperately hope they can retire before people demand they make a real decision .
As far as I 'm concerned , I 'd like to see some real clear lines drawn about what the government , law enforcement , and employers can do with information , and maybe even some laws that force social networking sites to provide logs to users of who accessed their information and when so that they can properly defend themselves in court .
I 'd like to see a day come when employers realize that it just is n't worth risking a lawsuit by doing web searches to see what a prospective employee is up to...and besides , here 's a shocker...people LIE about their personal lives , all the time...sometimes to try and convince their friends that they live exciting lives .
That information ca n't be relied upon at any time as a measure of any sort .
But I do n't see that change in how we deal with the Internet happening as long as people keep deluding themselves into thinking that by checking a box and clicking a button , they 're rendering all their info " private " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you could look at it this way...it might just be the sort of thing people need to force a real debate in the legal community about how the law needs to adapt to the Internet.
Right now, the legal community will all agree that something needs to be done...but you're split between people who think that a Facebook status update should be admissible as a confession to a crime in court, and people who think that it should just be governed by the same laws as phones are and desperately hope they can retire before people demand they make a real decision.
As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to see some real clear lines drawn about what the government, law enforcement, and employers can do with information, and maybe even some laws that force social networking sites to provide logs to users of who accessed their information and when so that they can properly defend themselves in court.
I'd like to see a day come when employers realize that it just isn't worth risking a lawsuit by doing web searches to see what a prospective employee is up to...and besides, here's a shocker...people LIE about their personal lives, all the time...sometimes to try and convince their friends that they live exciting lives.
That information can't be relied upon at any time as a measure of any sort.
But I don't see that change in how we deal with the Internet happening as long as people keep deluding themselves into thinking that by checking a box and clicking a button, they're rendering all their info "private".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730124</id>
	<title>Mark Zuckerberg....</title>
	<author>j\_f\_chamblee</author>
	<datestamp>1263209760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is 25 years old. One of the sentences in TFA begins "When I was in my dorm room at Harvard."</p><p>So, a rich, successful, right-place-at-place-at-the-right-time twentysomething makes a self-serving comment born out of the hubris and inexperience of youth. This is like Paris Hilton saying "It doesn't matter what you do, as long as its *hot*" and it is only newsworthy because Paris Hilton isn't in a position to take a great deal of the intellectual capital I've invested in Facebook and simply passing it to whomever suits her fancy. Perhaps some of Zuckerberg's older business partners could recommend that he shut up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is 25 years old .
One of the sentences in TFA begins " When I was in my dorm room at Harvard .
" So , a rich , successful , right-place-at-place-at-the-right-time twentysomething makes a self-serving comment born out of the hubris and inexperience of youth .
This is like Paris Hilton saying " It does n't matter what you do , as long as its * hot * " and it is only newsworthy because Paris Hilton is n't in a position to take a great deal of the intellectual capital I 've invested in Facebook and simply passing it to whomever suits her fancy .
Perhaps some of Zuckerberg 's older business partners could recommend that he shut up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is 25 years old.
One of the sentences in TFA begins "When I was in my dorm room at Harvard.
"So, a rich, successful, right-place-at-place-at-the-right-time twentysomething makes a self-serving comment born out of the hubris and inexperience of youth.
This is like Paris Hilton saying "It doesn't matter what you do, as long as its *hot*" and it is only newsworthy because Paris Hilton isn't in a position to take a great deal of the intellectual capital I've invested in Facebook and simply passing it to whomever suits her fancy.
Perhaps some of Zuckerberg's older business partners could recommend that he shut up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730136</id>
	<title>Re:Forget privacy ... on Facebook anyway.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263209820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well said. It's not that FB users no longer expect privacy, it's that they're coming to the realization that they can't expect privacy <b>from Facebook.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well said .
It 's not that FB users no longer expect privacy , it 's that they 're coming to the realization that they ca n't expect privacy from Facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well said.
It's not that FB users no longer expect privacy, it's that they're coming to the realization that they can't expect privacy from Facebook.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30741946</id>
	<title>People who claim that they have nothing to hide..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263286800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>..have no brain either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>..have no brain either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..have no brain either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730638</id>
	<title>Action speaks louder ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263212220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... What is so ironic is that his own facebook profile info has only two entries.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1. his website...well of course  www.facebook.com and<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2. personal interest:  'openness blah blah blah blah.'</p><p>What is not fair is when you open up other people info and preach that "privacy is not social norm", while not sharing a single thing yourself. What a hypocrite!  Hey, Zuckerberg you better respect your users privacy else you won't be worth a dime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... What is so ironic is that his own facebook profile info has only two entries .
                          1. his website...well of course www.facebook.com and                           2. personal interest : 'openness blah blah blah blah .
'What is not fair is when you open up other people info and preach that " privacy is not social norm " , while not sharing a single thing yourself .
What a hypocrite !
Hey , Zuckerberg you better respect your users privacy else you wo n't be worth a dime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... What is so ironic is that his own facebook profile info has only two entries.
                          1. his website...well of course  www.facebook.com and
                          2. personal interest:  'openness blah blah blah blah.
'What is not fair is when you open up other people info and preach that "privacy is not social norm", while not sharing a single thing yourself.
What a hypocrite!
Hey, Zuckerberg you better respect your users privacy else you won't be worth a dime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733020</id>
	<title>Re:Better ads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263228420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've taken a different approach.  Don't want something public?  <b>Lie about it and create a new truth.</b> </p><p>On Facebook, I'm exceptionally wealthy and well-traveled, and I'm 6'4" with the body of a Greek god.  Have a problem with that?  Suck it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've taken a different approach .
Do n't want something public ?
Lie about it and create a new truth .
On Facebook , I 'm exceptionally wealthy and well-traveled , and I 'm 6'4 " with the body of a Greek god .
Have a problem with that ?
Suck it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've taken a different approach.
Don't want something public?
Lie about it and create a new truth.
On Facebook, I'm exceptionally wealthy and well-traveled, and I'm 6'4" with the body of a Greek god.
Have a problem with that?
Suck it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730962</id>
	<title>Re:Better ads</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1263213900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do use Facebook! It's a very useful tool to spread false information or create an online persona, simply because nobody expects you to do that on Facebook, they expect that what's on Facebook is real and genuine.</p><p>Nobody so far bothered to double check.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do use Facebook !
It 's a very useful tool to spread false information or create an online persona , simply because nobody expects you to do that on Facebook , they expect that what 's on Facebook is real and genuine.Nobody so far bothered to double check .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do use Facebook!
It's a very useful tool to spread false information or create an online persona, simply because nobody expects you to do that on Facebook, they expect that what's on Facebook is real and genuine.Nobody so far bothered to double check.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30734932</id>
	<title>Facebook employee interview</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263295140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://therumpus.net/2010/01/conversations-about-the-internet-5-anonymous-facebook-employee/?full=yes" title="therumpus.net" rel="nofollow">http://therumpus.net/2010/01/conversations-about-the-internet-5-anonymous-facebook-employee/?full=yes</a> [therumpus.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //therumpus.net/2010/01/conversations-about-the-internet-5-anonymous-facebook-employee/ ? full = yes [ therumpus.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://therumpus.net/2010/01/conversations-about-the-internet-5-anonymous-facebook-employee/?full=yes [therumpus.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730234</id>
	<title>In a sense, he's right.</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1263210300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Information wants to be free. Once something is out there, on the internet, you can't put it back in the bottle. We cannot stop this, so we might as well adapt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Information wants to be free .
Once something is out there , on the internet , you ca n't put it back in the bottle .
We can not stop this , so we might as well adapt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Information wants to be free.
Once something is out there, on the internet, you can't put it back in the bottle.
We cannot stop this, so we might as well adapt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731230</id>
	<title>Re:Better ads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263215400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno, I'd just as soon believe that the average person is such a moron that they don't know what they have to lose along with their privacy. This Zuckerberg is, however, the typical scumbag businessman who cares not for anything other than his bottom line and, more to the point, how well his pockets are lined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno , I 'd just as soon believe that the average person is such a moron that they do n't know what they have to lose along with their privacy .
This Zuckerberg is , however , the typical scumbag businessman who cares not for anything other than his bottom line and , more to the point , how well his pockets are lined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno, I'd just as soon believe that the average person is such a moron that they don't know what they have to lose along with their privacy.
This Zuckerberg is, however, the typical scumbag businessman who cares not for anything other than his bottom line and, more to the point, how well his pockets are lined.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30743720</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe, rather than privacy, it's time to forget</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1263295680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, you still bring value to the site.  Facebook makes money from ads, and pays money for server space and bandwidth.</p><p>A user who uses Facebook obsessively makes them more money, of course, but they also cost the site more money in bandwidth and server space.  No doubt they are far more profitable even with that, but there's no reason to purge people who actually visit the site and put up even minimal information.  You aren't making them a lot of money, but you aren't really costing them anything either.</p><p>Plus there's something to be said for "momentum".  As more people find their friends (like you), they might decide to be more and more active on the site.  If 200 minimal accounts like yourself manage to get one recruit who goes hogwild on apps and stuff, you're worth the few megabytes of disk space and bandwidth you use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you still bring value to the site .
Facebook makes money from ads , and pays money for server space and bandwidth.A user who uses Facebook obsessively makes them more money , of course , but they also cost the site more money in bandwidth and server space .
No doubt they are far more profitable even with that , but there 's no reason to purge people who actually visit the site and put up even minimal information .
You are n't making them a lot of money , but you are n't really costing them anything either.Plus there 's something to be said for " momentum " .
As more people find their friends ( like you ) , they might decide to be more and more active on the site .
If 200 minimal accounts like yourself manage to get one recruit who goes hogwild on apps and stuff , you 're worth the few megabytes of disk space and bandwidth you use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you still bring value to the site.
Facebook makes money from ads, and pays money for server space and bandwidth.A user who uses Facebook obsessively makes them more money, of course, but they also cost the site more money in bandwidth and server space.
No doubt they are far more profitable even with that, but there's no reason to purge people who actually visit the site and put up even minimal information.
You aren't making them a lot of money, but you aren't really costing them anything either.Plus there's something to be said for "momentum".
As more people find their friends (like you), they might decide to be more and more active on the site.
If 200 minimal accounts like yourself manage to get one recruit who goes hogwild on apps and stuff, you're worth the few megabytes of disk space and bandwidth you use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730312</id>
	<title>Re:Go ahead, Zuckerberg.</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1263210720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been thinking of backing out of FB for a while.  This might be a good excuse.  Of course, Google still knows everything about me...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been thinking of backing out of FB for a while .
This might be a good excuse .
Of course , Google still knows everything about me.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been thinking of backing out of FB for a while.
This might be a good excuse.
Of course, Google still knows everything about me...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730986</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook Shoots Self in Foot...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263213960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That sounds a lot like Microsoft's "Information Rights Management" Feature in MS Office. Don't get your hopes up: it can never work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That sounds a lot like Microsoft 's " Information Rights Management " Feature in MS Office .
Do n't get your hopes up : it can never work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sounds a lot like Microsoft's "Information Rights Management" Feature in MS Office.
Don't get your hopes up: it can never work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731464</id>
	<title>Re:Better ads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263216900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought all you neckbeards were keen on spouting off about how "information wants to be free", anyway?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought all you neckbeards were keen on spouting off about how " information wants to be free " , anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought all you neckbeards were keen on spouting off about how "information wants to be free", anyway?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730258</id>
	<title>Mark Zuckerberg should shut his mouth</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1263210420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Facebook would be better off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook would be better off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook would be better off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731084</id>
	<title>Re:A useful tool nonetheless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263214500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Facebook ensures that I know exactly what people I know think they know about me. If I want to keep something private, it doesn't get posted. This doesn't seem like a difficult concept...</p></div><p>Here, let me just post all that stuff you want to keep private on MY page for you!</p><p>-your mom</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook ensures that I know exactly what people I know think they know about me .
If I want to keep something private , it does n't get posted .
This does n't seem like a difficult concept...Here , let me just post all that stuff you want to keep private on MY page for you ! -your mom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook ensures that I know exactly what people I know think they know about me.
If I want to keep something private, it doesn't get posted.
This doesn't seem like a difficult concept...Here, let me just post all that stuff you want to keep private on MY page for you!-your mom
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732048</id>
	<title>Naked is a choice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263220560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Mark wants to walk around naked that's his choice.  I'll keep my clothes on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Mark wants to walk around naked that 's his choice .
I 'll keep my clothes on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Mark wants to walk around naked that's his choice.
I'll keep my clothes on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30735068</id>
	<title>Re:The look at me era</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1263297060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lack of privacy -&gt; people can no longer do things which aren't considered "acceptable" by the vigilantes/mob/establishment even though there's nothing illegal about them -&gt; some kind of tyranny emerges from here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lack of privacy - &gt; people can no longer do things which are n't considered " acceptable " by the vigilantes/mob/establishment even though there 's nothing illegal about them - &gt; some kind of tyranny emerges from here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lack of privacy -&gt; people can no longer do things which aren't considered "acceptable" by the vigilantes/mob/establishment even though there's nothing illegal about them -&gt; some kind of tyranny emerges from here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30734048</id>
	<title>Re:Better ads</title>
	<author>RazzleDazzle</author>
	<datestamp>1263239640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats unpossible as he probably has LifeLock protection. Remember how good that is for LifeLock's founder?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats unpossible as he probably has LifeLock protection .
Remember how good that is for LifeLock 's founder ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats unpossible as he probably has LifeLock protection.
Remember how good that is for LifeLock's founder?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729922</id>
	<title>A very self-serving claim.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263208860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But false to fact.</p><p>The young generally have little experience with privacy and why it's important.  Until they get bit by the consequences of excessive disclosure.  Then they learn to value it.</p><p>(It's not just Gen-Y-ers.  It happened to me, and I'm a boomer - which means I predate the Internet by a bunch.  B-b)</p><p>Zuckerberg's business consists of making a lot of money by catering to those who have yet to learn the lesson.  And management positions attract those for whom telling the truth when a lie is more convenient is also not a social norm.  Of COURSE he'll make such claims.  And they're sheer self-serving puffery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But false to fact.The young generally have little experience with privacy and why it 's important .
Until they get bit by the consequences of excessive disclosure .
Then they learn to value it .
( It 's not just Gen-Y-ers .
It happened to me , and I 'm a boomer - which means I predate the Internet by a bunch .
B-b ) Zuckerberg 's business consists of making a lot of money by catering to those who have yet to learn the lesson .
And management positions attract those for whom telling the truth when a lie is more convenient is also not a social norm .
Of COURSE he 'll make such claims .
And they 're sheer self-serving puffery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But false to fact.The young generally have little experience with privacy and why it's important.
Until they get bit by the consequences of excessive disclosure.
Then they learn to value it.
(It's not just Gen-Y-ers.
It happened to me, and I'm a boomer - which means I predate the Internet by a bunch.
B-b)Zuckerberg's business consists of making a lot of money by catering to those who have yet to learn the lesson.
And management positions attract those for whom telling the truth when a lie is more convenient is also not a social norm.
Of COURSE he'll make such claims.
And they're sheer self-serving puffery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30741988</id>
	<title>Re: Go ahead, Zuckerberg.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263287040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you still on Facebook?  If so, they know you aren't going to leave because of anything they do, and your threats are hollow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you still on Facebook ?
If so , they know you are n't going to leave because of anything they do , and your threats are hollow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you still on Facebook?
If so, they know you aren't going to leave because of anything they do, and your threats are hollow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731000</id>
	<title>Healthy bodyweight is no longer the norm . . .</title>
	<author>e\_armadillo</author>
	<datestamp>1263214020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So using that logic, I should quit going to the gym and watching what I eat.  Utter bullshit.</p><p>Just because there is a trend toward a lack of concern over privacy, doesn't mean its any less a right or that we should be concerned less about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So using that logic , I should quit going to the gym and watching what I eat .
Utter bullshit.Just because there is a trend toward a lack of concern over privacy , does n't mean its any less a right or that we should be concerned less about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So using that logic, I should quit going to the gym and watching what I eat.
Utter bullshit.Just because there is a trend toward a lack of concern over privacy, doesn't mean its any less a right or that we should be concerned less about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731208</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook Shoots Self in Foot...</title>
	<author>WCLPeter</author>
	<datestamp>1263215220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>someone else will come along and will replace it, and there'll be a mass migration to the latest thing.</p></div><p>Yes, and then that new someone will have an overload of visitors and they'll need to buy more servers and bandwidth.  The "customers" won't want to pay for it, just like they don't pay for it now.  To keep the site from going under the new guy, who will by now have burned through most of their venture capital, will open up the floodgates on the massive data collected to advertisers.  Then another new guy, who is pissed because the "site sold out", will create a new site and the whole thing starts over again.</p><p>Now personally I don't really understand the whole "social networking" thing.  Message boards are just fine, though I <i>really</i> miss usenet, as I can share ideas with people I'd never meet in real life and learn something interesting.  But if I want to tell you about my trips, or what I'm doing in my day, or show off some really embarrassing photos, I'll tell my actual real friends whom I've met face to face thank you very much!  Though I will admit I've done the "twitter" thing a bunch of times and no, I've never figured out the point to it either.</p><p>Nope, I'm not some teeny bopper trying to be cool, nor am I a mid thirties person trying to relive a stylized nostalgic fantasy of my high-school days.  I mean seriously people, are you <i>really</i> so deluded as to pretend the guy who shoved you into lockers between periods, while making you look like a dork in front of the cute girl from your fourth period English class you were crushing on since freshman year and never had the guts to talk to, is now your bestest awesomest friend?</p><p>But if Facebook is so important to people, they should be willing to pay a fee to cover the expense of those servers and the costs of having real security.  But what?  Pay!?  For something on the internet?!?!  No way!</p><p>I don't know what we can do to get people to pay for stuff online, I know I would switch websites in a hurry if Slashdot went to subscriber only, but if a site has become such a big part of a person's life, like Facebook has for some people, they should pay for it.  Otherwise, they shouldn't complain when they have to trade their time freeloading on the site for some lost privacy.</p><p>As for me, I am in my mid thirties and I have absolutely no illusions that High-School was some wonderful bed of roses whose absence leaves a gaping hole in my heart, it was a hell we <i>all</i> wanted to get the frak out of.  Yet for those precious few that I cared about, that I could actually call "friends", I certainly still do have contact with them in real life.  I don't need a Facebook or a MySpace or a Flickr or any other nonsense social networking crap.  E-mail and my trusty old land line with an el cheapo GE answering machine work just fine...</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...well, okay, I <i>do</i> have a <a href="http://www.twitter.com/WCLPeter" title="twitter.com">Twitter</a> [twitter.com] too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>someone else will come along and will replace it , and there 'll be a mass migration to the latest thing.Yes , and then that new someone will have an overload of visitors and they 'll need to buy more servers and bandwidth .
The " customers " wo n't want to pay for it , just like they do n't pay for it now .
To keep the site from going under the new guy , who will by now have burned through most of their venture capital , will open up the floodgates on the massive data collected to advertisers .
Then another new guy , who is pissed because the " site sold out " , will create a new site and the whole thing starts over again.Now personally I do n't really understand the whole " social networking " thing .
Message boards are just fine , though I really miss usenet , as I can share ideas with people I 'd never meet in real life and learn something interesting .
But if I want to tell you about my trips , or what I 'm doing in my day , or show off some really embarrassing photos , I 'll tell my actual real friends whom I 've met face to face thank you very much !
Though I will admit I 've done the " twitter " thing a bunch of times and no , I 've never figured out the point to it either.Nope , I 'm not some teeny bopper trying to be cool , nor am I a mid thirties person trying to relive a stylized nostalgic fantasy of my high-school days .
I mean seriously people , are you really so deluded as to pretend the guy who shoved you into lockers between periods , while making you look like a dork in front of the cute girl from your fourth period English class you were crushing on since freshman year and never had the guts to talk to , is now your bestest awesomest friend ? But if Facebook is so important to people , they should be willing to pay a fee to cover the expense of those servers and the costs of having real security .
But what ?
Pay ! ? For something on the internet ? ! ? !
No way ! I do n't know what we can do to get people to pay for stuff online , I know I would switch websites in a hurry if Slashdot went to subscriber only , but if a site has become such a big part of a person 's life , like Facebook has for some people , they should pay for it .
Otherwise , they should n't complain when they have to trade their time freeloading on the site for some lost privacy.As for me , I am in my mid thirties and I have absolutely no illusions that High-School was some wonderful bed of roses whose absence leaves a gaping hole in my heart , it was a hell we all wanted to get the frak out of .
Yet for those precious few that I cared about , that I could actually call " friends " , I certainly still do have contact with them in real life .
I do n't need a Facebook or a MySpace or a Flickr or any other nonsense social networking crap .
E-mail and my trusty old land line with an el cheapo GE answering machine work just fine... ...well , okay , I do have a Twitter [ twitter.com ] too .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>someone else will come along and will replace it, and there'll be a mass migration to the latest thing.Yes, and then that new someone will have an overload of visitors and they'll need to buy more servers and bandwidth.
The "customers" won't want to pay for it, just like they don't pay for it now.
To keep the site from going under the new guy, who will by now have burned through most of their venture capital, will open up the floodgates on the massive data collected to advertisers.
Then another new guy, who is pissed because the "site sold out", will create a new site and the whole thing starts over again.Now personally I don't really understand the whole "social networking" thing.
Message boards are just fine, though I really miss usenet, as I can share ideas with people I'd never meet in real life and learn something interesting.
But if I want to tell you about my trips, or what I'm doing in my day, or show off some really embarrassing photos, I'll tell my actual real friends whom I've met face to face thank you very much!
Though I will admit I've done the "twitter" thing a bunch of times and no, I've never figured out the point to it either.Nope, I'm not some teeny bopper trying to be cool, nor am I a mid thirties person trying to relive a stylized nostalgic fantasy of my high-school days.
I mean seriously people, are you really so deluded as to pretend the guy who shoved you into lockers between periods, while making you look like a dork in front of the cute girl from your fourth period English class you were crushing on since freshman year and never had the guts to talk to, is now your bestest awesomest friend?But if Facebook is so important to people, they should be willing to pay a fee to cover the expense of those servers and the costs of having real security.
But what?
Pay!?  For something on the internet?!?!
No way!I don't know what we can do to get people to pay for stuff online, I know I would switch websites in a hurry if Slashdot went to subscriber only, but if a site has become such a big part of a person's life, like Facebook has for some people, they should pay for it.
Otherwise, they shouldn't complain when they have to trade their time freeloading on the site for some lost privacy.As for me, I am in my mid thirties and I have absolutely no illusions that High-School was some wonderful bed of roses whose absence leaves a gaping hole in my heart, it was a hell we all wanted to get the frak out of.
Yet for those precious few that I cared about, that I could actually call "friends", I certainly still do have contact with them in real life.
I don't need a Facebook or a MySpace or a Flickr or any other nonsense social networking crap.
E-mail and my trusty old land line with an el cheapo GE answering machine work just fine... ...well, okay, I do have a Twitter [twitter.com] too.
;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732442</id>
	<title>Funny coming from a Jew.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263223680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; How interesting that he,as a Jew, embraces<br>the police state - that is as long as he controls his OWN privacy with money he amassed by selling others. Hypocrisy at its best.</p><p>
&nbsp; What I would like to see is someone posting all "private" information on his parents, sister, and him. And why not throw in his slut girlfriend's porn video of her sucking his little dick?!</p><p>
&nbsp; Yeah Mark, I know you are reading this - shove those billions up your ass - cause Jews selling their own kind and others for money would be JUST TOO STEREOTYPICAL - GOOD JOB PROVING THAT WRONG!</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  How interesting that he,as a Jew , embracesthe police state - that is as long as he controls his OWN privacy with money he amassed by selling others .
Hypocrisy at its best .
  What I would like to see is someone posting all " private " information on his parents , sister , and him .
And why not throw in his slut girlfriend 's porn video of her sucking his little dick ? !
  Yeah Mark , I know you are reading this - shove those billions up your ass - cause Jews selling their own kind and others for money would be JUST TOO STEREOTYPICAL - GOOD JOB PROVING THAT WRONG !
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  How interesting that he,as a Jew, embracesthe police state - that is as long as he controls his OWN privacy with money he amassed by selling others.
Hypocrisy at its best.
  What I would like to see is someone posting all "private" information on his parents, sister, and him.
And why not throw in his slut girlfriend's porn video of her sucking his little dick?!
  Yeah Mark, I know you are reading this - shove those billions up your ass - cause Jews selling their own kind and others for money would be JUST TOO STEREOTYPICAL - GOOD JOB PROVING THAT WRONG!
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729872</id>
	<title>"people now default to sharing online"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263208680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah of course they default to it when you shove a thing in front of their face that most people don't understand at all and just click "proceed" unknowingly opening up all of their information. Did anyone else see that? Sure, you could choose to keep your "old settings" but it was something you had to specifically mark, and we all know how great people are at carefully checking forms before getting on to look at their sister's new baby or whatever. That change was outright duplicity on Facebook's part. Breaking news: Everyone defaults to IE so that means its objectively the best browser! Right? Right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah of course they default to it when you shove a thing in front of their face that most people do n't understand at all and just click " proceed " unknowingly opening up all of their information .
Did anyone else see that ?
Sure , you could choose to keep your " old settings " but it was something you had to specifically mark , and we all know how great people are at carefully checking forms before getting on to look at their sister 's new baby or whatever .
That change was outright duplicity on Facebook 's part .
Breaking news : Everyone defaults to IE so that means its objectively the best browser !
Right ? Right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah of course they default to it when you shove a thing in front of their face that most people don't understand at all and just click "proceed" unknowingly opening up all of their information.
Did anyone else see that?
Sure, you could choose to keep your "old settings" but it was something you had to specifically mark, and we all know how great people are at carefully checking forms before getting on to look at their sister's new baby or whatever.
That change was outright duplicity on Facebook's part.
Breaking news: Everyone defaults to IE so that means its objectively the best browser!
Right? Right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730106</id>
	<title>Re:Forget privacy ... on Facebook anyway.</title>
	<author>TooMuchToDo</author>
	<datestamp>1263209700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can you not create friend lists within Facebook, assign friends to those lists, and then configure granular privacy options for those lists?
<p>
<a href="http://www.allfacebook.com/2009/05/facebook-friend-lists/" title="allfacebook.com">http://www.allfacebook.com/2009/05/facebook-friend-lists/</a> [allfacebook.com]
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.allfacebook.com/2009/02/facebook-privacy/" title="allfacebook.com">http://www.allfacebook.com/2009/02/facebook-privacy/</a> [allfacebook.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you not create friend lists within Facebook , assign friends to those lists , and then configure granular privacy options for those lists ?
http : //www.allfacebook.com/2009/05/facebook-friend-lists/ [ allfacebook.com ] http : //www.allfacebook.com/2009/02/facebook-privacy/ [ allfacebook.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you not create friend lists within Facebook, assign friends to those lists, and then configure granular privacy options for those lists?
http://www.allfacebook.com/2009/05/facebook-friend-lists/ [allfacebook.com]

http://www.allfacebook.com/2009/02/facebook-privacy/ [allfacebook.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732430</id>
	<title>Facebook's what?</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1263223560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Facebook's Suckers Forget Privacy</p></div></blockquote><p>It seemed plausible when I read it...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook 's Suckers Forget PrivacyIt seemed plausible when I read it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook's Suckers Forget PrivacyIt seemed plausible when I read it...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731650</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy: Good for me, bad for you</title>
	<author>Minwee</author>
	<datestamp>1263218040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll settle for being able to click on any Facebook ad and see exactly who placed it and how much they paid.
</p><p>After all, nobody wants privacy any more, do they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll settle for being able to click on any Facebook ad and see exactly who placed it and how much they paid .
After all , nobody wants privacy any more , do they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll settle for being able to click on any Facebook ad and see exactly who placed it and how much they paid.
After all, nobody wants privacy any more, do they?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30734132</id>
	<title>Re:Better ads</title>
	<author>dynamo52</author>
	<datestamp>1263327420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Immediately after the changes to the privacy policy friends lists were available publicly.  After an initial outcry they quickly added the option to hide friends from your profile page but the information was still accessible through a backdoor url tied to the facebook user ID.  Using this url, a few friends and I started messaging everybody on Mark Zuckerberg's friends list.  It took about 8 hours before they again restricted the policy to only allow friends of friends to see your list if you chose to have it hidden.  Finally, last week they made it available only to friends.  Note that before the policy change, users had the ability to choose which friends could access the list.  Your fan pages are still publicly available however.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Immediately after the changes to the privacy policy friends lists were available publicly .
After an initial outcry they quickly added the option to hide friends from your profile page but the information was still accessible through a backdoor url tied to the facebook user ID .
Using this url , a few friends and I started messaging everybody on Mark Zuckerberg 's friends list .
It took about 8 hours before they again restricted the policy to only allow friends of friends to see your list if you chose to have it hidden .
Finally , last week they made it available only to friends .
Note that before the policy change , users had the ability to choose which friends could access the list .
Your fan pages are still publicly available however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Immediately after the changes to the privacy policy friends lists were available publicly.
After an initial outcry they quickly added the option to hide friends from your profile page but the information was still accessible through a backdoor url tied to the facebook user ID.
Using this url, a few friends and I started messaging everybody on Mark Zuckerberg's friends list.
It took about 8 hours before they again restricted the policy to only allow friends of friends to see your list if you chose to have it hidden.
Finally, last week they made it available only to friends.
Note that before the policy change, users had the ability to choose which friends could access the list.
Your fan pages are still publicly available however.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730582</id>
	<title>Re:He's wrong</title>
	<author>RManning</author>
	<datestamp>1263211920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I feel privileged to live in Canada...</p></div><p>Sorry, what? You lost me right there.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Just kidding, geez.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel privileged to live in Canada...Sorry , what ?
You lost me right there .
: ) Just kidding , geez .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel privileged to live in Canada...Sorry, what?
You lost me right there.
:)Just kidding, geez.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729736</id>
	<title>he needs to think</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263208200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just because people do it doesn't mean it's right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just because people do it does n't mean it 's right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just because people do it doesn't mean it's right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30740180</id>
	<title>IDIOT MORON democrats!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263322920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FORGET ZUKERBERG!!!!!   Get rid of that IDIOT, MORON, democrat!!!!!</p><p>I EXPECT PRIVACY EVERYDAY!!!!  THAT IS WHY I DON'T USE FACEBOOK, MYSPACE, OR ANY OTHER OF THOSE IDOITIC, MORON, DEMOCRAT SITES!!!!</p><p>It is not the conservatives that are the evil scum of the world, IT IS THE CORRUPT, IDENTITY STEALING democrats!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FORGET ZUKERBERG ! ! ! ! !
Get rid of that IDIOT , MORON , democrat ! ! ! !
! I EXPECT PRIVACY EVERYDAY ! ! ! !
THAT IS WHY I DO N'T USE FACEBOOK , MYSPACE , OR ANY OTHER OF THOSE IDOITIC , MORON , DEMOCRAT SITES ! ! !
! It is not the conservatives that are the evil scum of the world , IT IS THE CORRUPT , IDENTITY STEALING democrats ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FORGET ZUKERBERG!!!!!
Get rid of that IDIOT, MORON, democrat!!!!
!I EXPECT PRIVACY EVERYDAY!!!!
THAT IS WHY I DON'T USE FACEBOOK, MYSPACE, OR ANY OTHER OF THOSE IDOITIC, MORON, DEMOCRAT SITES!!!
!It is not the conservatives that are the evil scum of the world, IT IS THE CORRUPT, IDENTITY STEALING democrats!!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30735334</id>
	<title>Re:People still expect privacy</title>
	<author>joost</author>
	<datestamp>1263299820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>a general misunderstanding that putting information on the Internet <strong>always</strong> makes that private information very public.</p></div></blockquote><p>Fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a general misunderstanding that putting information on the Internet always makes that private information very public.Fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a general misunderstanding that putting information on the Internet always makes that private information very public.Fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731120</id>
	<title>Re:The new social contract</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263214740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up. I'll remember that argument for the "I don't have anything to hide" brigade here in Europe. Thanks dude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
I 'll remember that argument for the " I do n't have anything to hide " brigade here in Europe .
Thanks dude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
I'll remember that argument for the "I don't have anything to hide" brigade here in Europe.
Thanks dude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730202</id>
	<title>You guys are missing the point</title>
	<author>gearloos</author>
	<datestamp>1263210120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is being conveyed is that you can expect what is normal. Privacy used to be normal so you were entitled to a reasonable amount of privacy. Now that is no longer the case because so many are willing to sacrifice their privacy it means you have no reason to expect them to hold your data private. Blame the clowns that tweet or update thier pages everytime they walk into another room or sneeze for this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is being conveyed is that you can expect what is normal .
Privacy used to be normal so you were entitled to a reasonable amount of privacy .
Now that is no longer the case because so many are willing to sacrifice their privacy it means you have no reason to expect them to hold your data private .
Blame the clowns that tweet or update thier pages everytime they walk into another room or sneeze for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is being conveyed is that you can expect what is normal.
Privacy used to be normal so you were entitled to a reasonable amount of privacy.
Now that is no longer the case because so many are willing to sacrifice their privacy it means you have no reason to expect them to hold your data private.
Blame the clowns that tweet or update thier pages everytime they walk into another room or sneeze for this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729964</id>
	<title>The 'Everyone can see THAT?' era</title>
	<author>spun</author>
	<datestamp>1263209040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zuckerberg is trying to cover his ass. His site can't or won't provide proper access controls. His customers, the advertisers, don't want you to have privacy from them. So Mr. Zuckerberg, calling himself a 'prophet,' no less, tells you that you don't want privacy. But of course, Mr. Zuckerberg still wants his own privacy, and this 'no more privacy' world does not include corporations or governments, only individuals. Is there some easy way to find out who is advertising on facebook? No, and you can't find out what deals have been made regarding your information. So, privacy still exists, for those who can afford it. But not for us. Thank you Prophet Zuckerberg.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zuckerberg is trying to cover his ass .
His site ca n't or wo n't provide proper access controls .
His customers , the advertisers , do n't want you to have privacy from them .
So Mr. Zuckerberg , calling himself a 'prophet, ' no less , tells you that you do n't want privacy .
But of course , Mr. Zuckerberg still wants his own privacy , and this 'no more privacy ' world does not include corporations or governments , only individuals .
Is there some easy way to find out who is advertising on facebook ?
No , and you ca n't find out what deals have been made regarding your information .
So , privacy still exists , for those who can afford it .
But not for us .
Thank you Prophet Zuckerberg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zuckerberg is trying to cover his ass.
His site can't or won't provide proper access controls.
His customers, the advertisers, don't want you to have privacy from them.
So Mr. Zuckerberg, calling himself a 'prophet,' no less, tells you that you don't want privacy.
But of course, Mr. Zuckerberg still wants his own privacy, and this 'no more privacy' world does not include corporations or governments, only individuals.
Is there some easy way to find out who is advertising on facebook?
No, and you can't find out what deals have been made regarding your information.
So, privacy still exists, for those who can afford it.
But not for us.
Thank you Prophet Zuckerberg.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731618</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, there are new norms ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263217860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that you probably won't have a choice at some point. Majority decision. If the majority gives a crap about their privacy, they also give a crap about your privacy. They elect the polititans, who then see no problem with taking your privacy away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that you probably wo n't have a choice at some point .
Majority decision .
If the majority gives a crap about their privacy , they also give a crap about your privacy .
They elect the polititans , who then see no problem with taking your privacy away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that you probably won't have a choice at some point.
Majority decision.
If the majority gives a crap about their privacy, they also give a crap about your privacy.
They elect the polititans, who then see no problem with taking your privacy away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730180</id>
	<title>Okay, let's talk about...</title>
	<author>Subm</author>
	<datestamp>1263210000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>Privacy is no longer a social norm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</i>"<p>

Okay, let's talk about Zuckerberg.</p><p>

Can anyone comment on the rumors that he has syphilis? Or why he might have a prescription for viagra?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Privacy is no longer a social norm ... " Okay , let 's talk about Zuckerberg .
Can anyone comment on the rumors that he has syphilis ?
Or why he might have a prescription for viagra ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Privacy is no longer a social norm ..."

Okay, let's talk about Zuckerberg.
Can anyone comment on the rumors that he has syphilis?
Or why he might have a prescription for viagra?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729734</id>
	<title>Eat my goatse'd penis!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263208200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">Eat my goatse'd penis!</a> [goatse.fr]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eat my goatse 'd penis !
[ goatse.fr ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eat my goatse'd penis!
[goatse.fr]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733712</id>
	<title>Re:Better ads</title>
	<author>Dahamma</author>
	<datestamp>1263234900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup.  You can't take the pee out of the pool.  Doesn't matter if it was the shallow end or the deep end, it's all going to circulate eventually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup .
You ca n't take the pee out of the pool .
Does n't matter if it was the shallow end or the deep end , it 's all going to circulate eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup.
You can't take the pee out of the pool.
Doesn't matter if it was the shallow end or the deep end, it's all going to circulate eventually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730226</id>
	<title>Re:The new social contract</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263210240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another point of how the social contract affects us is privacy laws. Many of the laws regarding a person's privacy are based upon a "reasonable expectation of privacy." With the popularity of social networking and other web-based activities, I believe that the amount of "expected privacy" is going down over time. How soon before it's expected that you have no privacy (and the laws change in the government's favor to reflect that)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another point of how the social contract affects us is privacy laws .
Many of the laws regarding a person 's privacy are based upon a " reasonable expectation of privacy .
" With the popularity of social networking and other web-based activities , I believe that the amount of " expected privacy " is going down over time .
How soon before it 's expected that you have no privacy ( and the laws change in the government 's favor to reflect that ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another point of how the social contract affects us is privacy laws.
Many of the laws regarding a person's privacy are based upon a "reasonable expectation of privacy.
" With the popularity of social networking and other web-based activities, I believe that the amount of "expected privacy" is going down over time.
How soon before it's expected that you have no privacy (and the laws change in the government's favor to reflect that)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731078</id>
	<title>Well, okay, you can go ahead and think that.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263214500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure.  If that's what he wants to believe, he can go ahead.  It's his right.</p><p>[forever crosses Facebook off the list of things to try someday]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure .
If that 's what he wants to believe , he can go ahead .
It 's his right .
[ forever crosses Facebook off the list of things to try someday ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure.
If that's what he wants to believe, he can go ahead.
It's his right.
[forever crosses Facebook off the list of things to try someday]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30740304</id>
	<title>Re:Go ahead, Zuckerberg.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263323460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have any sincerity behind your words, you would have already cancelled your account a long time ago. Facebook has repeatedly shown zero regard for anyone's privacy. What are you waiting for them to do before you are sufficiently outraged? Provide downloadable spyware? Call your mom and read your facebook posts to her?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have any sincerity behind your words , you would have already cancelled your account a long time ago .
Facebook has repeatedly shown zero regard for anyone 's privacy .
What are you waiting for them to do before you are sufficiently outraged ?
Provide downloadable spyware ?
Call your mom and read your facebook posts to her ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have any sincerity behind your words, you would have already cancelled your account a long time ago.
Facebook has repeatedly shown zero regard for anyone's privacy.
What are you waiting for them to do before you are sufficiently outraged?
Provide downloadable spyware?
Call your mom and read your facebook posts to her?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730908</id>
	<title>Carrying guns around daily is no longer the norm</title>
	<author>Tanman</author>
	<datestamp>1263213540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it is still a right I can utilize should I have the need or desire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it is still a right I can utilize should I have the need or desire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it is still a right I can utilize should I have the need or desire.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729754</id>
	<title>The look at me era</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263208260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It does seem like people are willing to sacrifice much more privacy for the sake of convincing everyone how cool they are. It's a long way from those scary bar-codes everyone was worried about 30 years ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does seem like people are willing to sacrifice much more privacy for the sake of convincing everyone how cool they are .
It 's a long way from those scary bar-codes everyone was worried about 30 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does seem like people are willing to sacrifice much more privacy for the sake of convincing everyone how cool they are.
It's a long way from those scary bar-codes everyone was worried about 30 years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729844</id>
	<title>Facebook Shoots Self in Foot...</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1263208560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>All this CEO is admitting is that he's unable to come up with a way to monetize his services without compromising people's privacy.

The whole appeal of facebook, originally, was that it preserved privacy and kept the spammers to a minimum, when compared with MySpace. Now that Facebook is leaving one of its basic reasons for existing in the dust, someone else will come along and will replace it, and there'll be a mass migration to the latest thing.

Just takes the next smart guy to create it. Perhaps it'll be based upon personal DRM. (Har har!)

--Ray</htmltext>
<tokenext>All this CEO is admitting is that he 's unable to come up with a way to monetize his services without compromising people 's privacy .
The whole appeal of facebook , originally , was that it preserved privacy and kept the spammers to a minimum , when compared with MySpace .
Now that Facebook is leaving one of its basic reasons for existing in the dust , someone else will come along and will replace it , and there 'll be a mass migration to the latest thing .
Just takes the next smart guy to create it .
Perhaps it 'll be based upon personal DRM .
( Har har !
) --Ray</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this CEO is admitting is that he's unable to come up with a way to monetize his services without compromising people's privacy.
The whole appeal of facebook, originally, was that it preserved privacy and kept the spammers to a minimum, when compared with MySpace.
Now that Facebook is leaving one of its basic reasons for existing in the dust, someone else will come along and will replace it, and there'll be a mass migration to the latest thing.
Just takes the next smart guy to create it.
Perhaps it'll be based upon personal DRM.
(Har har!
)

--Ray</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729994</id>
	<title>!true, people  want their privacy ON THEIR TERMS</title>
	<author>yakumo.unr</author>
	<datestamp>1263209220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely not true, he set up his site to default to no privacy, that is a COMPLETELY different matter, there are numerous huge groups and countless chain messages in protest of the badly chosen default privacy settings on facebook.</p><p>And this from the man who openly admitted to pushing malware in some interview not so long ago to get his company off the ground.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely not true , he set up his site to default to no privacy , that is a COMPLETELY different matter , there are numerous huge groups and countless chain messages in protest of the badly chosen default privacy settings on facebook.And this from the man who openly admitted to pushing malware in some interview not so long ago to get his company off the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely not true, he set up his site to default to no privacy, that is a COMPLETELY different matter, there are numerous huge groups and countless chain messages in protest of the badly chosen default privacy settings on facebook.And this from the man who openly admitted to pushing malware in some interview not so long ago to get his company off the ground.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730078</id>
	<title>Re:The look at me era</title>
	<author>Nursie</author>
	<datestamp>1263209520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a difference between volnteering to give up some small amount of privacy (talking crap on facebook) and being put under surveillance by the government or corporations.</p><p>Very, very different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a difference between volnteering to give up some small amount of privacy ( talking crap on facebook ) and being put under surveillance by the government or corporations.Very , very different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a difference between volnteering to give up some small amount of privacy (talking crap on facebook) and being put under surveillance by the government or corporations.Very, very different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729840</id>
	<title>People still expect privacy</title>
	<author>0racle</author>
	<datestamp>1263208560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>People still expect privacy, even Facebook/MySpace/whatever users. They just suffer from two things, an assumption that the Social Media outlets act in a responsible way keeping the information they submit confidential and a general misunderstanding that putting information on the Internet without any controls now makes that private information very public.<br> <br>People friend their friends on Facebook and blab about whatever as they would if they were talking to this person directly in a private context. They don't see that they have submitted the information where it is viewable and searchable by everyone and is being recorded and analyzed by the company for later sale as statistics. This is an indication of technology moving faster then the average person keeps up with, not that everyone is suddenly ok with being monitored.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People still expect privacy , even Facebook/MySpace/whatever users .
They just suffer from two things , an assumption that the Social Media outlets act in a responsible way keeping the information they submit confidential and a general misunderstanding that putting information on the Internet without any controls now makes that private information very public .
People friend their friends on Facebook and blab about whatever as they would if they were talking to this person directly in a private context .
They do n't see that they have submitted the information where it is viewable and searchable by everyone and is being recorded and analyzed by the company for later sale as statistics .
This is an indication of technology moving faster then the average person keeps up with , not that everyone is suddenly ok with being monitored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People still expect privacy, even Facebook/MySpace/whatever users.
They just suffer from two things, an assumption that the Social Media outlets act in a responsible way keeping the information they submit confidential and a general misunderstanding that putting information on the Internet without any controls now makes that private information very public.
People friend their friends on Facebook and blab about whatever as they would if they were talking to this person directly in a private context.
They don't see that they have submitted the information where it is viewable and searchable by everyone and is being recorded and analyzed by the company for later sale as statistics.
This is an indication of technology moving faster then the average person keeps up with, not that everyone is suddenly ok with being monitored.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730302</id>
	<title>Isn't that what you get?</title>
	<author>adosch</author>
	<datestamp>1263210660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why sit there and tromp on Mark Zuckerberg?  Isn't that the point of social networking is to give up a bit of the normal privacy for a bit of the networking aspect?  For that point, you're the grind in your own engine over time; you're allowed to share "as much as you want to" on these social networking sites (a la Facebook).  What you give up on your own free will is your own gain (or demise) in the world of privacy.  To expect anything else would be contradictory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why sit there and tromp on Mark Zuckerberg ?
Is n't that the point of social networking is to give up a bit of the normal privacy for a bit of the networking aspect ?
For that point , you 're the grind in your own engine over time ; you 're allowed to share " as much as you want to " on these social networking sites ( a la Facebook ) .
What you give up on your own free will is your own gain ( or demise ) in the world of privacy .
To expect anything else would be contradictory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why sit there and tromp on Mark Zuckerberg?
Isn't that the point of social networking is to give up a bit of the normal privacy for a bit of the networking aspect?
For that point, you're the grind in your own engine over time; you're allowed to share "as much as you want to" on these social networking sites (a la Facebook).
What you give up on your own free will is your own gain (or demise) in the world of privacy.
To expect anything else would be contradictory.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733518</id>
	<title>Here's a thought:</title>
	<author>xlsior</author>
	<datestamp>1263232920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Forget Facebook instead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget Facebook instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget Facebook instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733158</id>
	<title>Everything I put on facebook is what I want public</title>
	<author>refactored</author>
	<datestamp>1263229440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have no expectation that anything on facebook is private.
<p>
Therefore the only things I put on facebook are what is already public knowledge.
</p><p>
As such it's useful.
</p><p>
The private stuff... that's what disposable email accounts are for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no expectation that anything on facebook is private .
Therefore the only things I put on facebook are what is already public knowledge .
As such it 's useful .
The private stuff... that 's what disposable email accounts are for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no expectation that anything on facebook is private.
Therefore the only things I put on facebook are what is already public knowledge.
As such it's useful.
The private stuff... that's what disposable email accounts are for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729864</id>
	<title>No, it's not OK for government to snoop</title>
	<author>aaandre</author>
	<datestamp>1263208620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, people default to sharing, that's human nature. Collecting all that private personal data is very easy, true. In a similar way all house locks are easily pickable, and all phone calls are easily tapped into.</p><p>Facebook could accommodate curious governments easily by providing "Yes, I want to share all my  posts with government bodies and make them admissable in court as evidence." checkbox.</p><p>If that checkbox is left unchecked, no government representative has the right to read anything by the user, and nothing would be permissible in court as evidence, and, if proven to have used this evidence, the government would be liable.</p><p>Restricting our legal activities because of fear from our own public servants is not the way to go. Taking control over the activities of our public servants is.</p><p>Governments naturally grow, get corrupted and continuously demand more power. Running scared from them is not a solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , people default to sharing , that 's human nature .
Collecting all that private personal data is very easy , true .
In a similar way all house locks are easily pickable , and all phone calls are easily tapped into.Facebook could accommodate curious governments easily by providing " Yes , I want to share all my posts with government bodies and make them admissable in court as evidence .
" checkbox.If that checkbox is left unchecked , no government representative has the right to read anything by the user , and nothing would be permissible in court as evidence , and , if proven to have used this evidence , the government would be liable.Restricting our legal activities because of fear from our own public servants is not the way to go .
Taking control over the activities of our public servants is.Governments naturally grow , get corrupted and continuously demand more power .
Running scared from them is not a solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, people default to sharing, that's human nature.
Collecting all that private personal data is very easy, true.
In a similar way all house locks are easily pickable, and all phone calls are easily tapped into.Facebook could accommodate curious governments easily by providing "Yes, I want to share all my  posts with government bodies and make them admissable in court as evidence.
" checkbox.If that checkbox is left unchecked, no government representative has the right to read anything by the user, and nothing would be permissible in court as evidence, and, if proven to have used this evidence, the government would be liable.Restricting our legal activities because of fear from our own public servants is not the way to go.
Taking control over the activities of our public servants is.Governments naturally grow, get corrupted and continuously demand more power.
Running scared from them is not a solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729948</id>
	<title>Sharing is the opposite of concealing.</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1263208980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because I use my Facebook account to share events in my life, does not mean I am not concealing events in my life.</p><p>

I have an expectation of privacy. Especially in real life. I do not have the same expectations of privacy in public, or with information I post via internet servers which I do not own or control. There seems to be a lot of attempts to indoctrinate the youth with the concept that their lives are subject to peer review at all times. I disagree with these motives and find them totalitarian in nature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because I use my Facebook account to share events in my life , does not mean I am not concealing events in my life .
I have an expectation of privacy .
Especially in real life .
I do not have the same expectations of privacy in public , or with information I post via internet servers which I do not own or control .
There seems to be a lot of attempts to indoctrinate the youth with the concept that their lives are subject to peer review at all times .
I disagree with these motives and find them totalitarian in nature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because I use my Facebook account to share events in my life, does not mean I am not concealing events in my life.
I have an expectation of privacy.
Especially in real life.
I do not have the same expectations of privacy in public, or with information I post via internet servers which I do not own or control.
There seems to be a lot of attempts to indoctrinate the youth with the concept that their lives are subject to peer review at all times.
I disagree with these motives and find them totalitarian in nature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732952</id>
	<title>Not true anymore</title>
	<author>formfeed</author>
	<datestamp>1263227820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This used to be the case, but it's not true anymore. Thanks to flash cookies, adsense, Ip-logging, etc. large companies , advertisers, and the government can create a profile of your internet activities. <p>
Today you went to cat-haters.com, exploding-cat.net, greatdanebitches.com, and googled for "retrieve sticks howto video", "understanding my owner", "sticking head through car windows tips"  - looks like you are a dog.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This used to be the case , but it 's not true anymore .
Thanks to flash cookies , adsense , Ip-logging , etc .
large companies , advertisers , and the government can create a profile of your internet activities .
Today you went to cat-haters.com , exploding-cat.net , greatdanebitches.com , and googled for " retrieve sticks howto video " , " understanding my owner " , " sticking head through car windows tips " - looks like you are a dog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This used to be the case, but it's not true anymore.
Thanks to flash cookies, adsense, Ip-logging, etc.
large companies , advertisers, and the government can create a profile of your internet activities.
Today you went to cat-haters.com, exploding-cat.net, greatdanebitches.com, and googled for "retrieve sticks howto video", "understanding my owner", "sticking head through car windows tips"  - looks like you are a dog.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729934</id>
	<title>Re:The look at me era</title>
	<author>quangdog</author>
	<datestamp>1263208920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's less that people are willing to sacrifice privacy for self-aggrandizement, but rather that they do not stop to analyze the implications to their privacy of what they are about to post.
<br> <br>
Joe sixpack does not wonder about how posting pictures of naked portions of his anatomy may affect his ability to find a job in 5 years time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's less that people are willing to sacrifice privacy for self-aggrandizement , but rather that they do not stop to analyze the implications to their privacy of what they are about to post .
Joe sixpack does not wonder about how posting pictures of naked portions of his anatomy may affect his ability to find a job in 5 years time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's less that people are willing to sacrifice privacy for self-aggrandizement, but rather that they do not stop to analyze the implications to their privacy of what they are about to post.
Joe sixpack does not wonder about how posting pictures of naked portions of his anatomy may affect his ability to find a job in 5 years time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731250</id>
	<title>Typical /. Nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263215520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The discussion on Digg is again so much better.<br>http://digg.com/security/Facebook\_s\_Zuckerberg\_I\_know\_that\_people\_don\_t\_want\_privacy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The discussion on Digg is again so much better.http : //digg.com/security/Facebook \ _s \ _Zuckerberg \ _I \ _know \ _that \ _people \ _don \ _t \ _want \ _privacy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The discussion on Digg is again so much better.http://digg.com/security/Facebook\_s\_Zuckerberg\_I\_know\_that\_people\_don\_t\_want\_privacy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733900</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy: Good for me, bad for you</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1263237180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If privacy is such an outdated concept, Mr. Zuckerberg, why can't I see your friends list, your photos, or just about anything else on your Facebook page?</p></div><p>I agree. Mr Zuckerberg should put his money where his mouth is or STFU.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If privacy is such an outdated concept , Mr. Zuckerberg , why ca n't I see your friends list , your photos , or just about anything else on your Facebook page ? I agree .
Mr Zuckerberg should put his money where his mouth is or STFU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If privacy is such an outdated concept, Mr. Zuckerberg, why can't I see your friends list, your photos, or just about anything else on your Facebook page?I agree.
Mr Zuckerberg should put his money where his mouth is or STFU.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730266</id>
	<title>Zuckerberg can f*ck off - !!!STREAMING LIVE NOW!!!</title>
	<author>Black Sabbath</author>
	<datestamp>1263210420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this twat thinks that privacy is no longer a social norm, where's the video's of him masturbating to pictures of George Orwell? The blog describing his plushy fantasies. The tweets giving everyone blow-by-blow updates to the size of his bank balance.</p><p>The reality is that even the unthinking morons that post pics/vids/words of themselves doing cringeworthy, career-limiting, dumb shit, STILL make a choice about what to post. There's still plenty of stuff that they don't want ANYONE knowing. The line may have moved over the last 20 years, but it hasn't disappeared.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this twat thinks that privacy is no longer a social norm , where 's the video 's of him masturbating to pictures of George Orwell ?
The blog describing his plushy fantasies .
The tweets giving everyone blow-by-blow updates to the size of his bank balance.The reality is that even the unthinking morons that post pics/vids/words of themselves doing cringeworthy , career-limiting , dumb shit , STILL make a choice about what to post .
There 's still plenty of stuff that they do n't want ANYONE knowing .
The line may have moved over the last 20 years , but it has n't disappeared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this twat thinks that privacy is no longer a social norm, where's the video's of him masturbating to pictures of George Orwell?
The blog describing his plushy fantasies.
The tweets giving everyone blow-by-blow updates to the size of his bank balance.The reality is that even the unthinking morons that post pics/vids/words of themselves doing cringeworthy, career-limiting, dumb shit, STILL make a choice about what to post.
There's still plenty of stuff that they don't want ANYONE knowing.
The line may have moved over the last 20 years, but it hasn't disappeared.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731036</id>
	<title>Privacy vs Secrecy</title>
	<author>gringer</author>
	<datestamp>1263214260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FWIW, privacy is about the control of information flow in particular contexts.</p><p>Secrecy: Avoiding taking pictures of yourself, or deleting them off the memory card before they're uploaded to a computer.<br>Privacy: Sharing photos on facebook, setting limits on who can view them.</p><p>People can [usually] breach the rules of privacy easily by copying information once it has been provided to them. Making things secret means they were never transferred in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FWIW , privacy is about the control of information flow in particular contexts.Secrecy : Avoiding taking pictures of yourself , or deleting them off the memory card before they 're uploaded to a computer.Privacy : Sharing photos on facebook , setting limits on who can view them.People can [ usually ] breach the rules of privacy easily by copying information once it has been provided to them .
Making things secret means they were never transferred in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FWIW, privacy is about the control of information flow in particular contexts.Secrecy: Avoiding taking pictures of yourself, or deleting them off the memory card before they're uploaded to a computer.Privacy: Sharing photos on facebook, setting limits on who can view them.People can [usually] breach the rules of privacy easily by copying information once it has been provided to them.
Making things secret means they were never transferred in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730162</id>
	<title>Re:Better ads</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1263209940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>WHat he's saying is, it's one rule for me, and another for you.  Or have you changed your mind and set your profile to open, zuck?</htmltext>
<tokenext>WHat he 's saying is , it 's one rule for me , and another for you .
Or have you changed your mind and set your profile to open , zuck ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WHat he's saying is, it's one rule for me, and another for you.
Or have you changed your mind and set your profile to open, zuck?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729932</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263208920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is always right for a government to do anything reasonable to protect even a single child.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is always right for a government to do anything reasonable to protect even a single child .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is always right for a government to do anything reasonable to protect even a single child.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30737954</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, there are new norms ...</title>
	<author>BiggoronSword</author>
	<datestamp>1263315180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed completely.  Most Facebook users (i.e. none of you "Slashdotters" actually reading this comment) don't understand the privacy settings, and don't care because they don't understand the risks.</p><p>The problem is, the only way for Facebook to really tighten personal security is to default to locking everything down and allowing the user to loosen as necessary.  Of course, the problem here is, the user will complain that they have to do more "confusing" (read: manually setting) things to make content viewable to their audience (i.e. friends, friends of friends, and/or everyone).</p><p>Locking down by default isn't something that would bother me, because I'm not an idiot and actually understand and use the security features provided by Facebook.  I also understand that 90+\% of apps are bad.</p><p>The reality is, people like me don't make up the majority of Facebook users.  Every user I've met, doesn't even understand what friend lists are.  Unfortunately, it's the same people like me, who actually care about our privacy, and would be pissed as hell if Facebook stopped caring about us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed completely .
Most Facebook users ( i.e .
none of you " Slashdotters " actually reading this comment ) do n't understand the privacy settings , and do n't care because they do n't understand the risks.The problem is , the only way for Facebook to really tighten personal security is to default to locking everything down and allowing the user to loosen as necessary .
Of course , the problem here is , the user will complain that they have to do more " confusing " ( read : manually setting ) things to make content viewable to their audience ( i.e .
friends , friends of friends , and/or everyone ) .Locking down by default is n't something that would bother me , because I 'm not an idiot and actually understand and use the security features provided by Facebook .
I also understand that 90 + \ % of apps are bad.The reality is , people like me do n't make up the majority of Facebook users .
Every user I 've met , does n't even understand what friend lists are .
Unfortunately , it 's the same people like me , who actually care about our privacy , and would be pissed as hell if Facebook stopped caring about us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed completely.
Most Facebook users (i.e.
none of you "Slashdotters" actually reading this comment) don't understand the privacy settings, and don't care because they don't understand the risks.The problem is, the only way for Facebook to really tighten personal security is to default to locking everything down and allowing the user to loosen as necessary.
Of course, the problem here is, the user will complain that they have to do more "confusing" (read: manually setting) things to make content viewable to their audience (i.e.
friends, friends of friends, and/or everyone).Locking down by default isn't something that would bother me, because I'm not an idiot and actually understand and use the security features provided by Facebook.
I also understand that 90+\% of apps are bad.The reality is, people like me don't make up the majority of Facebook users.
Every user I've met, doesn't even understand what friend lists are.
Unfortunately, it's the same people like me, who actually care about our privacy, and would be pissed as hell if Facebook stopped caring about us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731080</id>
	<title>Re:Better ads</title>
	<author>Geoff</author>
	<datestamp>1263214500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use Facebook, but there's a very simple rule for it. Assume anything there is public information. Don't want something public? Don't put it on Facebook (or anywhere else online).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Facebook , but there 's a very simple rule for it .
Assume anything there is public information .
Do n't want something public ?
Do n't put it on Facebook ( or anywhere else online ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Facebook, but there's a very simple rule for it.
Assume anything there is public information.
Don't want something public?
Don't put it on Facebook (or anywhere else online).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730012</id>
	<title>Education</title>
	<author>TheWizardTim</author>
	<datestamp>1263209340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that it comes down to education. When you ask a college age person, "Do you think that you would be hired at a job if your future employer knew you got passed out drunk on weekends?" I would assume that most people would answer, "no." I think that if people were educated more on what is good and not so good to post online, things would be different. I saw an public service add on MTV about sexting, reminding kids that once you send out the naked picture of yourself, you lose control of it. You might just want it for your boyfriend/girlfriend, but nothing stops them from passing it on, to everyone you know.</p><p>Like any new technology, we are experiencing growing pains. The same thing happened when the telephone was wide spread use. You had to teach kids not to say they were home alone when a stranger called. We need to teach kids and people that posting misadventures on Facebook is not a good idea.</p><p>As a general rule, "Never say anything on a cell phone, or post anything on the internet that you would not want to see in a court room."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that it comes down to education .
When you ask a college age person , " Do you think that you would be hired at a job if your future employer knew you got passed out drunk on weekends ?
" I would assume that most people would answer , " no .
" I think that if people were educated more on what is good and not so good to post online , things would be different .
I saw an public service add on MTV about sexting , reminding kids that once you send out the naked picture of yourself , you lose control of it .
You might just want it for your boyfriend/girlfriend , but nothing stops them from passing it on , to everyone you know.Like any new technology , we are experiencing growing pains .
The same thing happened when the telephone was wide spread use .
You had to teach kids not to say they were home alone when a stranger called .
We need to teach kids and people that posting misadventures on Facebook is not a good idea.As a general rule , " Never say anything on a cell phone , or post anything on the internet that you would not want to see in a court room .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that it comes down to education.
When you ask a college age person, "Do you think that you would be hired at a job if your future employer knew you got passed out drunk on weekends?
" I would assume that most people would answer, "no.
" I think that if people were educated more on what is good and not so good to post online, things would be different.
I saw an public service add on MTV about sexting, reminding kids that once you send out the naked picture of yourself, you lose control of it.
You might just want it for your boyfriend/girlfriend, but nothing stops them from passing it on, to everyone you know.Like any new technology, we are experiencing growing pains.
The same thing happened when the telephone was wide spread use.
You had to teach kids not to say they were home alone when a stranger called.
We need to teach kids and people that posting misadventures on Facebook is not a good idea.As a general rule, "Never say anything on a cell phone, or post anything on the internet that you would not want to see in a court room.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730740</id>
	<title>Re:Better ads</title>
	<author>sqrt(2)</author>
	<datestamp>1263212820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What ads? There are ads on Facebook? When did this start?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ads ?
There are ads on Facebook ?
When did this start ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What ads?
There are ads on Facebook?
When did this start?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732896</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, let's talk about...</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1263227280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Okay, let's talk about Zuckerberg.  Can anyone comment on the rumors that he has syphilis? Or why he might have a prescription for viagra?</p></div><p>OMG!  I hugged that teddy bear too!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , let 's talk about Zuckerberg .
Can anyone comment on the rumors that he has syphilis ?
Or why he might have a prescription for viagra ? OMG !
I hugged that teddy bear too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, let's talk about Zuckerberg.
Can anyone comment on the rumors that he has syphilis?
Or why he might have a prescription for viagra?OMG!
I hugged that teddy bear too!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733276</id>
	<title>Re:He's wrong</title>
	<author>pla</author>
	<datestamp>1263230580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>*Specifically* social networking sites like Facebook where there are real names attached to accounts
and visible out in the open.</i> <br>
<br>
Advertisements?  Real names?  I don't know what all of you have started smoking, but two words:
"Adblock" and "lie".<br>
<br>
"My" Facebook account has absolutely nothing to do with me.  I made it as a place to placate friends
who kept asking if I had a FB account - So I do, named after one of my pets, with not one single shred
of information on it that links back to me (unless you already know what my dining room looks like,
with my cat sitting in the window).<br>
<br>
Now, the apparently required SMS authentication Facebook uses disturbed me somewhat... Until I got a
random Google Voice account.  So congrats, Zuckhead, you can now connect <b>two</b> throwaway accounts
and send SMS spam to one throwaway phone number.<br>
<br>
<br>
Granted, it does indeed get harder to protect one's privacy every day... But at the moment, anyone who
cares, still can.</htmltext>
<tokenext>* Specifically * social networking sites like Facebook where there are real names attached to accounts and visible out in the open .
Advertisements ? Real names ?
I do n't know what all of you have started smoking , but two words : " Adblock " and " lie " .
" My " Facebook account has absolutely nothing to do with me .
I made it as a place to placate friends who kept asking if I had a FB account - So I do , named after one of my pets , with not one single shred of information on it that links back to me ( unless you already know what my dining room looks like , with my cat sitting in the window ) .
Now , the apparently required SMS authentication Facebook uses disturbed me somewhat... Until I got a random Google Voice account .
So congrats , Zuckhead , you can now connect two throwaway accounts and send SMS spam to one throwaway phone number .
Granted , it does indeed get harder to protect one 's privacy every day... But at the moment , anyone who cares , still can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*Specifically* social networking sites like Facebook where there are real names attached to accounts
and visible out in the open.
Advertisements?  Real names?
I don't know what all of you have started smoking, but two words:
"Adblock" and "lie".
"My" Facebook account has absolutely nothing to do with me.
I made it as a place to placate friends
who kept asking if I had a FB account - So I do, named after one of my pets, with not one single shred
of information on it that links back to me (unless you already know what my dining room looks like,
with my cat sitting in the window).
Now, the apparently required SMS authentication Facebook uses disturbed me somewhat... Until I got a
random Google Voice account.
So congrats, Zuckhead, you can now connect two throwaway accounts
and send SMS spam to one throwaway phone number.
Granted, it does indeed get harder to protect one's privacy every day... But at the moment, anyone who
cares, still can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30738030</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy: Good for me, bad for you</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1263315480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Set everything to public on your own page,</i></p><p>Even the pictures of him having gay sex with <a href="http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/01/17538" title="wired.com">Scott McNeely</a> [wired.com] to celebrate the end of privacy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Set everything to public on your own page,Even the pictures of him having gay sex with Scott McNeely [ wired.com ] to celebrate the end of privacy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Set everything to public on your own page,Even the pictures of him having gay sex with Scott McNeely [wired.com] to celebrate the end of privacy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730112</id>
	<title>Re:Forget privacy ... on Facebook anyway.</title>
	<author>moderators\_are\_w*nke</author>
	<datestamp>1263209700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spot on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spot on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spot on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730760</id>
	<title>You can't have your cake and eat it too...</title>
	<author>binary paladin</author>
	<datestamp>1263212940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me start by saying that I AM a privacy advocate and that it's absolutely fundamental to have the ability to keep your life private in a free society.</p><p>With that said, if you're worried about your personal privacy, why the fuck are you posting on Facebook? Seriously. And how much are you paying for your Facebook account? And who exactly is paying for your Facebook account? Etc.</p><p>I have a Facebook account because I don't care who knows who my friends are. There's nothing I post on Facebook that I am concerned about anyone finding out about. If I was, I wouldn't post it because I'm not a moron. I do this realizing everyone from advertisers to law enforcement agencies MIGHT use that information at some point. It doesn't mean I don't care about privacy, it just means that there are plenty of aspects of my life that I don't care if the entire world knows about.</p><p>If you want to be more private, don't get a Facebook account. The internet, however, is a PUBLIC network. Social networking is a more or less public. When you use someone else's FREE service, they don't owe YOU anything and you have NO rights as far as they're concerned. That's reality.</p><p>Privacy is becoming less and less of a social norm. I don't say this because I think it's a good thing, but "western civilization" in general seems all to eager to piss away liberty. After all, who needs free speech and privacy when we can have free health care and welfare instead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me start by saying that I AM a privacy advocate and that it 's absolutely fundamental to have the ability to keep your life private in a free society.With that said , if you 're worried about your personal privacy , why the fuck are you posting on Facebook ?
Seriously. And how much are you paying for your Facebook account ?
And who exactly is paying for your Facebook account ?
Etc.I have a Facebook account because I do n't care who knows who my friends are .
There 's nothing I post on Facebook that I am concerned about anyone finding out about .
If I was , I would n't post it because I 'm not a moron .
I do this realizing everyone from advertisers to law enforcement agencies MIGHT use that information at some point .
It does n't mean I do n't care about privacy , it just means that there are plenty of aspects of my life that I do n't care if the entire world knows about.If you want to be more private , do n't get a Facebook account .
The internet , however , is a PUBLIC network .
Social networking is a more or less public .
When you use someone else 's FREE service , they do n't owe YOU anything and you have NO rights as far as they 're concerned .
That 's reality.Privacy is becoming less and less of a social norm .
I do n't say this because I think it 's a good thing , but " western civilization " in general seems all to eager to piss away liberty .
After all , who needs free speech and privacy when we can have free health care and welfare instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me start by saying that I AM a privacy advocate and that it's absolutely fundamental to have the ability to keep your life private in a free society.With that said, if you're worried about your personal privacy, why the fuck are you posting on Facebook?
Seriously. And how much are you paying for your Facebook account?
And who exactly is paying for your Facebook account?
Etc.I have a Facebook account because I don't care who knows who my friends are.
There's nothing I post on Facebook that I am concerned about anyone finding out about.
If I was, I wouldn't post it because I'm not a moron.
I do this realizing everyone from advertisers to law enforcement agencies MIGHT use that information at some point.
It doesn't mean I don't care about privacy, it just means that there are plenty of aspects of my life that I don't care if the entire world knows about.If you want to be more private, don't get a Facebook account.
The internet, however, is a PUBLIC network.
Social networking is a more or less public.
When you use someone else's FREE service, they don't owe YOU anything and you have NO rights as far as they're concerned.
That's reality.Privacy is becoming less and less of a social norm.
I don't say this because I think it's a good thing, but "western civilization" in general seems all to eager to piss away liberty.
After all, who needs free speech and privacy when we can have free health care and welfare instead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731130</id>
	<title>Zuckerberg Has a History of Being a Douche</title>
	<author>Script Kiddie</author>
	<datestamp>1263214800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, he came up with Facebook to hit on chicks, accidentally rode it to fame and fortune, and every fourth word that spills out of his mouth is "me". This remark is just one more in a long history of doucheitude.</p><p>Anyhow, just because he wants to nose into everyone's personal life, doesn't mean he should be permitted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , he came up with Facebook to hit on chicks , accidentally rode it to fame and fortune , and every fourth word that spills out of his mouth is " me " .
This remark is just one more in a long history of doucheitude.Anyhow , just because he wants to nose into everyone 's personal life , does n't mean he should be permitted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, he came up with Facebook to hit on chicks, accidentally rode it to fame and fortune, and every fourth word that spills out of his mouth is "me".
This remark is just one more in a long history of doucheitude.Anyhow, just because he wants to nose into everyone's personal life, doesn't mean he should be permitted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729848</id>
	<title>He's wrong</title>
	<author>mewsenews</author>
	<datestamp>1263208560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People do have an expectation of privacy that is at odds with what has been happening on the Internet. *Specifically* social networking sites like Facebook where there are real names attached to accounts and visible out in the open.</p><p>I feel privileged to live in Canada where we've <a href="http://www.privacyinfo.ca/" title="privacyinfo.ca">enshrined some of our expected privacy into law</a> [privacyinfo.ca] to fight assholes like this. I hope the United States follows suit someday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People do have an expectation of privacy that is at odds with what has been happening on the Internet .
* Specifically * social networking sites like Facebook where there are real names attached to accounts and visible out in the open.I feel privileged to live in Canada where we 've enshrined some of our expected privacy into law [ privacyinfo.ca ] to fight assholes like this .
I hope the United States follows suit someday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People do have an expectation of privacy that is at odds with what has been happening on the Internet.
*Specifically* social networking sites like Facebook where there are real names attached to accounts and visible out in the open.I feel privileged to live in Canada where we've enshrined some of our expected privacy into law [privacyinfo.ca] to fight assholes like this.
I hope the United States follows suit someday.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731614</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy: Good for me, bad for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263217860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If privacy is such an outdated concept, Mr. Zuckerberg, why can't I see your friends list, your photos, or just about anything else on your Facebook page?</p></div></blockquote><p>And while he's fixing that, how about he publically publishes his home address, personal phone numbers, social security number, bank account details, credit card reciepts and medical records?  Privacy -- who needs it eh?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If privacy is such an outdated concept , Mr. Zuckerberg , why ca n't I see your friends list , your photos , or just about anything else on your Facebook page ? And while he 's fixing that , how about he publically publishes his home address , personal phone numbers , social security number , bank account details , credit card reciepts and medical records ?
Privacy -- who needs it eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If privacy is such an outdated concept, Mr. Zuckerberg, why can't I see your friends list, your photos, or just about anything else on your Facebook page?And while he's fixing that, how about he publically publishes his home address, personal phone numbers, social security number, bank account details, credit card reciepts and medical records?
Privacy -- who needs it eh?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731140</id>
	<title>education</title>
	<author>farble1670</author>
	<datestamp>1263214800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is more about education than anything else. don't post anything at all on facebook or any other online service that you don't want to share with everyone you know, and people you will know in the future. anything from your political views to your lifestyle can and will be used against you.</p><p>it's commonplace for universities, businesses, etc to look you up on facebook and google and see what you are all about. it's up to you to conduct yourself on facebook in a manner befitting. don't post anything on facebook you wouldn't gladly offer up in a job interview, on your university application, or to a stranger on the street.</p><p>i weep for all the kids these days who will have the indiscretions of their teen and pre-teen years come back to haunt them later in life. posted on facebook? it's now public data that will never, ever go away. i consider myself very lucky to be able to forget / hide some of the things i did in my youth. i am sure if i was a teenager today, i'd be right there posting pictures of my ass and making rude comments about my school instructors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is more about education than anything else .
do n't post anything at all on facebook or any other online service that you do n't want to share with everyone you know , and people you will know in the future .
anything from your political views to your lifestyle can and will be used against you.it 's commonplace for universities , businesses , etc to look you up on facebook and google and see what you are all about .
it 's up to you to conduct yourself on facebook in a manner befitting .
do n't post anything on facebook you would n't gladly offer up in a job interview , on your university application , or to a stranger on the street.i weep for all the kids these days who will have the indiscretions of their teen and pre-teen years come back to haunt them later in life .
posted on facebook ?
it 's now public data that will never , ever go away .
i consider myself very lucky to be able to forget / hide some of the things i did in my youth .
i am sure if i was a teenager today , i 'd be right there posting pictures of my ass and making rude comments about my school instructors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is more about education than anything else.
don't post anything at all on facebook or any other online service that you don't want to share with everyone you know, and people you will know in the future.
anything from your political views to your lifestyle can and will be used against you.it's commonplace for universities, businesses, etc to look you up on facebook and google and see what you are all about.
it's up to you to conduct yourself on facebook in a manner befitting.
don't post anything on facebook you wouldn't gladly offer up in a job interview, on your university application, or to a stranger on the street.i weep for all the kids these days who will have the indiscretions of their teen and pre-teen years come back to haunt them later in life.
posted on facebook?
it's now public data that will never, ever go away.
i consider myself very lucky to be able to forget / hide some of the things i did in my youth.
i am sure if i was a teenager today, i'd be right there posting pictures of my ass and making rude comments about my school instructors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30735892</id>
	<title>Default?</title>
	<author>Aradiel</author>
	<datestamp>1263305220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In a way he is right, but for two key reasons:

1) Users who don't understand or care about internet privacy, and applications such as Facebook make you share by default.
2) Users who do care about privacy cannot change all of the privacy settings on applications such as Facebook.

Basically, yes, we do default to sharing, but only because we are forced to share even if we don't want to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a way he is right , but for two key reasons : 1 ) Users who do n't understand or care about internet privacy , and applications such as Facebook make you share by default .
2 ) Users who do care about privacy can not change all of the privacy settings on applications such as Facebook .
Basically , yes , we do default to sharing , but only because we are forced to share even if we do n't want to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a way he is right, but for two key reasons:

1) Users who don't understand or care about internet privacy, and applications such as Facebook make you share by default.
2) Users who do care about privacy cannot change all of the privacy settings on applications such as Facebook.
Basically, yes, we do default to sharing, but only because we are forced to share even if we don't want to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731166</id>
	<title>Re:The look at me era</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1263214920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They could know where you were before you even had GPS. Triangulating the source of your signal with multiple cell towers (or satellites, whatever) can give a pretty good estimate. Here is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzokhar\_Dudayev" title="wikipedia.org">one example</a> [wikipedia.org], with a satellite phone, where positioning information was accurate enough to deliver a conventional weapon. It is hardly the only example either.
<p>
IMO there will be less privacy. But not zero privacy, nor the privacy levels on Facebook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They could know where you were before you even had GPS .
Triangulating the source of your signal with multiple cell towers ( or satellites , whatever ) can give a pretty good estimate .
Here is one example [ wikipedia.org ] , with a satellite phone , where positioning information was accurate enough to deliver a conventional weapon .
It is hardly the only example either .
IMO there will be less privacy .
But not zero privacy , nor the privacy levels on Facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could know where you were before you even had GPS.
Triangulating the source of your signal with multiple cell towers (or satellites, whatever) can give a pretty good estimate.
Here is one example [wikipedia.org], with a satellite phone, where positioning information was accurate enough to deliver a conventional weapon.
It is hardly the only example either.
IMO there will be less privacy.
But not zero privacy, nor the privacy levels on Facebook.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729830</id>
	<title>Privacy:  Good for me, bad for you</title>
	<author>eln</author>
	<datestamp>1263208500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If privacy is such an outdated concept, Mr. Zuckerberg, why can't I see your friends list, your photos, or just about anything else on your Facebook page?  Set everything to public on your own page, show everyone how silly privacy concerns are.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If privacy is such an outdated concept , Mr. Zuckerberg , why ca n't I see your friends list , your photos , or just about anything else on your Facebook page ?
Set everything to public on your own page , show everyone how silly privacy concerns are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If privacy is such an outdated concept, Mr. Zuckerberg, why can't I see your friends list, your photos, or just about anything else on your Facebook page?
Set everything to public on your own page, show everyone how silly privacy concerns are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730726</id>
	<title>It's good to be the King.</title>
	<author>Lilith's Heart-shape</author>
	<datestamp>1263212760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zuckerberg isn't going to make do with the settings we proles are stuck with. Why should he, when he's the CEO?</p><p>Trevor Goodchild might have proclaimed the New Openness, where nothing was sacred and nothing was secret, but you can be damned sure that he himself kept secrets -- and they were most certainly sacred.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zuckerberg is n't going to make do with the settings we proles are stuck with .
Why should he , when he 's the CEO ? Trevor Goodchild might have proclaimed the New Openness , where nothing was sacred and nothing was secret , but you can be damned sure that he himself kept secrets -- and they were most certainly sacred .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zuckerberg isn't going to make do with the settings we proles are stuck with.
Why should he, when he's the CEO?Trevor Goodchild might have proclaimed the New Openness, where nothing was sacred and nothing was secret, but you can be damned sure that he himself kept secrets -- and they were most certainly sacred.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730300</id>
	<title>Re:A useful tool nonetheless</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1263210660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course, reading between the lines, there's a lot one could interpret about you.  You seem to think you're totally in control, but don't forget that any of your friends (real of facebook-only) who has a picture of you could post it, tag it and publish it to the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , reading between the lines , there 's a lot one could interpret about you .
You seem to think you 're totally in control , but do n't forget that any of your friends ( real of facebook-only ) who has a picture of you could post it , tag it and publish it to the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, reading between the lines, there's a lot one could interpret about you.
You seem to think you're totally in control, but don't forget that any of your friends (real of facebook-only) who has a picture of you could post it, tag it and publish it to the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731410</id>
	<title>Ah, I jumped ship at the right time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263216600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I left Facebook and all other social networks about 2 years ago. I know they still have my data, but at least its out of date (and mostly fabricated). Really, the only way to get rid of the social network plague is to walk away and make fun of everyone you see IRL that uses 'em. Just like everyone was peer-pressured into joining because it was the "cool thing to do," if we enlightened few make social networks uncool, then the sheep will follow suit and rid themselves of their illness. When someone asks you, "Did you get the Facebook event invite?" you respond with, "Why the fuck would I use Facebook? Didn't that become dated and dumb like a year ago?" Even if you're the only one in the group saying things like that, it will catch on. It has in my group of friends.</p><p>Maybe I'm making a huge assumption in thinking the slashdot crowd are trendsetters, but people listen to nerds when it comes to nerdy things like the Internet. Use the force, Nerd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I left Facebook and all other social networks about 2 years ago .
I know they still have my data , but at least its out of date ( and mostly fabricated ) .
Really , the only way to get rid of the social network plague is to walk away and make fun of everyone you see IRL that uses 'em .
Just like everyone was peer-pressured into joining because it was the " cool thing to do , " if we enlightened few make social networks uncool , then the sheep will follow suit and rid themselves of their illness .
When someone asks you , " Did you get the Facebook event invite ?
" you respond with , " Why the fuck would I use Facebook ?
Did n't that become dated and dumb like a year ago ?
" Even if you 're the only one in the group saying things like that , it will catch on .
It has in my group of friends.Maybe I 'm making a huge assumption in thinking the slashdot crowd are trendsetters , but people listen to nerds when it comes to nerdy things like the Internet .
Use the force , Nerd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I left Facebook and all other social networks about 2 years ago.
I know they still have my data, but at least its out of date (and mostly fabricated).
Really, the only way to get rid of the social network plague is to walk away and make fun of everyone you see IRL that uses 'em.
Just like everyone was peer-pressured into joining because it was the "cool thing to do," if we enlightened few make social networks uncool, then the sheep will follow suit and rid themselves of their illness.
When someone asks you, "Did you get the Facebook event invite?
" you respond with, "Why the fuck would I use Facebook?
Didn't that become dated and dumb like a year ago?
" Even if you're the only one in the group saying things like that, it will catch on.
It has in my group of friends.Maybe I'm making a huge assumption in thinking the slashdot crowd are trendsetters, but people listen to nerds when it comes to nerdy things like the Internet.
Use the force, Nerd.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730898</id>
	<title>Re:The look at me era</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263213480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think it's less that people are willing to sacrifice privacy for self-aggrandizement, but rather that they do not stop to analyze the implications to their privacy of what they are about to post.</p></div><p>I think it's less that, and more that many companies fail to distinguish between factors which do or do not affect how good someone will be in a job.</p><p>Joe Human Resources cares more about whether an applicant has posted naked pics online than whether they know how to write a clear, concise report.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's less that people are willing to sacrifice privacy for self-aggrandizement , but rather that they do not stop to analyze the implications to their privacy of what they are about to post.I think it 's less that , and more that many companies fail to distinguish between factors which do or do not affect how good someone will be in a job.Joe Human Resources cares more about whether an applicant has posted naked pics online than whether they know how to write a clear , concise report .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's less that people are willing to sacrifice privacy for self-aggrandizement, but rather that they do not stop to analyze the implications to their privacy of what they are about to post.I think it's less that, and more that many companies fail to distinguish between factors which do or do not affect how good someone will be in a job.Joe Human Resources cares more about whether an applicant has posted naked pics online than whether they know how to write a clear, concise report.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730712</id>
	<title>Back in the old days ...</title>
	<author>Mr\_Silver</author>
	<datestamp>1263212700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the old days, people were oversharing with information on their personal websites, oversharing on livejournal and oversharing on blogs.</p><p>Mark is right in that people tend to share more these days, but that is only really because the tools have made it easier to do so. You could still hand craft a "My friends" page in Vi with links to your friends homepages (and in 95, we did that) but now all it takes is a couple of button clicks and you get not only a link to them, but one back too and a picture of them to boot.</p><p>I find it amusing that ISP's give people 5MB of web space with their broadband accounts. For the majority of people, Facebook contains everything they'd want from a personal home page. When I was at uni, my website had some details about me, a picture, some photos scanned in on the uni scanner and a rudimentary "wall". We haven't exactly evolved the functionality much since then.</p><p>If Facebook is guilty of anything, it's allowing people who didn't have the skills necessary to set up, design and hack up a homepage and populate it with content, to do that rather easily. Even then, I'm sure Blogger and Livejournal would probably want to claim a first for that honour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the old days , people were oversharing with information on their personal websites , oversharing on livejournal and oversharing on blogs.Mark is right in that people tend to share more these days , but that is only really because the tools have made it easier to do so .
You could still hand craft a " My friends " page in Vi with links to your friends homepages ( and in 95 , we did that ) but now all it takes is a couple of button clicks and you get not only a link to them , but one back too and a picture of them to boot.I find it amusing that ISP 's give people 5MB of web space with their broadband accounts .
For the majority of people , Facebook contains everything they 'd want from a personal home page .
When I was at uni , my website had some details about me , a picture , some photos scanned in on the uni scanner and a rudimentary " wall " .
We have n't exactly evolved the functionality much since then.If Facebook is guilty of anything , it 's allowing people who did n't have the skills necessary to set up , design and hack up a homepage and populate it with content , to do that rather easily .
Even then , I 'm sure Blogger and Livejournal would probably want to claim a first for that honour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the old days, people were oversharing with information on their personal websites, oversharing on livejournal and oversharing on blogs.Mark is right in that people tend to share more these days, but that is only really because the tools have made it easier to do so.
You could still hand craft a "My friends" page in Vi with links to your friends homepages (and in 95, we did that) but now all it takes is a couple of button clicks and you get not only a link to them, but one back too and a picture of them to boot.I find it amusing that ISP's give people 5MB of web space with their broadband accounts.
For the majority of people, Facebook contains everything they'd want from a personal home page.
When I was at uni, my website had some details about me, a picture, some photos scanned in on the uni scanner and a rudimentary "wall".
We haven't exactly evolved the functionality much since then.If Facebook is guilty of anything, it's allowing people who didn't have the skills necessary to set up, design and hack up a homepage and populate it with content, to do that rather easily.
Even then, I'm sure Blogger and Livejournal would probably want to claim a first for that honour.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30734662</id>
	<title>Only losers use Facebook/MySpace, etc.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263291780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's filled with losers and idiots anyway, who cares?<br>No normal person would use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's filled with losers and idiots anyway , who cares ? No normal person would use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's filled with losers and idiots anyway, who cares?No normal person would use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733676</id>
	<title>Re:he needs to think</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1263234660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There needs to be a foundation we can donate to that will provide 24x7 surveillance of these guys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There needs to be a foundation we can donate to that will provide 24x7 surveillance of these guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There needs to be a foundation we can donate to that will provide 24x7 surveillance of these guys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731106</id>
	<title>Re:The new social contract</title>
	<author>joh</author>
	<datestamp>1263214560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Whatever you have ever said or done will continue to be used against you for the rest of your life.  That is the world this kind of thinking creates.  It creates fear to think or act.  Privacy is ultimately about liberty.</p></div><p>Well, while I'm not exactly thinking you're wrong... but isn't liberty more about being able to stand up for what you've done and said and not so much about being able to hide and run from it?</p><p>Privacy is *also* about liberty, but liberty is not only about doing and saying things in the dark where nobody looks. It also means being able to do and say things in the open with your name attached and not having to fear anything. If it were different, walking around with our faces covered and never talking to anyone would be the ultimate liberty.</p><p>I think liberty lives in the tension between privacy and daring to expose yourself and fight for your right to do that and still not be bothered by others for it. The right of standing up and showing your face and speaking up is as important as the right of having privacy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever you have ever said or done will continue to be used against you for the rest of your life .
That is the world this kind of thinking creates .
It creates fear to think or act .
Privacy is ultimately about liberty.Well , while I 'm not exactly thinking you 're wrong... but is n't liberty more about being able to stand up for what you 've done and said and not so much about being able to hide and run from it ? Privacy is * also * about liberty , but liberty is not only about doing and saying things in the dark where nobody looks .
It also means being able to do and say things in the open with your name attached and not having to fear anything .
If it were different , walking around with our faces covered and never talking to anyone would be the ultimate liberty.I think liberty lives in the tension between privacy and daring to expose yourself and fight for your right to do that and still not be bothered by others for it .
The right of standing up and showing your face and speaking up is as important as the right of having privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever you have ever said or done will continue to be used against you for the rest of your life.
That is the world this kind of thinking creates.
It creates fear to think or act.
Privacy is ultimately about liberty.Well, while I'm not exactly thinking you're wrong... but isn't liberty more about being able to stand up for what you've done and said and not so much about being able to hide and run from it?Privacy is *also* about liberty, but liberty is not only about doing and saying things in the dark where nobody looks.
It also means being able to do and say things in the open with your name attached and not having to fear anything.
If it were different, walking around with our faces covered and never talking to anyone would be the ultimate liberty.I think liberty lives in the tension between privacy and daring to expose yourself and fight for your right to do that and still not be bothered by others for it.
The right of standing up and showing your face and speaking up is as important as the right of having privacy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732276</id>
	<title>Re:The look at me era</title>
	<author>Psaakyrn</author>
	<datestamp>1263222300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The presumption is that privacy is the best solution against tyranny. Right now, I believe accountability is a preferred method of handling such threats, seeing that the world is globalized sufficiently to give everything an open view to the majority (your mileage may vary).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The presumption is that privacy is the best solution against tyranny .
Right now , I believe accountability is a preferred method of handling such threats , seeing that the world is globalized sufficiently to give everything an open view to the majority ( your mileage may vary ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The presumption is that privacy is the best solution against tyranny.
Right now, I believe accountability is a preferred method of handling such threats, seeing that the world is globalized sufficiently to give everything an open view to the majority (your mileage may vary).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730736</id>
	<title>Re:The 'Everyone can see THAT?' era</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1263212820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Facebook's Zuckerberg Says Forget Privacy</p> </div><p>So he won't mind the camera I have hidden in his bedroom?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Zuckerberg is trying to cover his ass.</p></div><p>So far I have seen no attempt by Zucker to cover anything, nor the groupies who were present.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook 's Zuckerberg Says Forget Privacy So he wo n't mind the camera I have hidden in his bedroom ? Zuckerberg is trying to cover his ass.So far I have seen no attempt by Zucker to cover anything , nor the groupies who were present .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook's Zuckerberg Says Forget Privacy So he won't mind the camera I have hidden in his bedroom?Zuckerberg is trying to cover his ass.So far I have seen no attempt by Zucker to cover anything, nor the groupies who were present.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729910</id>
	<title>A useful tool nonetheless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263208800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Facebook ensures that I know exactly what people I know think they know about me. If I want to keep something private, it doesn't get posted. This doesn't seem like a difficult concept...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook ensures that I know exactly what people I know think they know about me .
If I want to keep something private , it does n't get posted .
This does n't seem like a difficult concept.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook ensures that I know exactly what people I know think they know about me.
If I want to keep something private, it doesn't get posted.
This doesn't seem like a difficult concept...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732094</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe, rather than privacy, it's time to forget</title>
	<author>halfey</author>
	<datestamp>1263220860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Facepalm...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facepalm.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facepalm...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30734762</id>
	<title>Re:Put your money where your mouth is, bitch</title>
	<author>r00tw00t</author>
	<datestamp>1263293040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is one of his status updates:

"Mark Zuckerberg  For those wondering, I set most of my content 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<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)"</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of his status updates : " Mark Zuckerberg For those wondering , I set most of my content to be open so people could see it .
I set some of my content to be more private , but I did n't see a need to limit visibility of pics with my friends , family or my teddy bear : ) "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of his status updates:

"Mark Zuckerberg  For those wondering, I set most of my content 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 :)"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730414</id>
	<title>Re:The new social contract</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263211080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The future is pretty clear here....</p><p>We give our rights away fairly easy, under the guise of alternate meanings. Privacy is no longer an accepted norm, as information exchange, and 'status online' thoroughly placate every instance of what we hear and see. Over a few decades, what was known as the Bill of Rights, is finally quashed and no longer exists in spirit or applicable physical form.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...the the fight back...</p><p>The fight to get back what we so willingly gave up, liberties, 'normal' everyday freedoms, becomes physical, and ultimately violent. Rebellion from the constant 'information barrage' is considered anti-nationalist, and the social divide take ranks, with the strong arm of the Government put into action to quickly quell the sounds of dissent and change. Power, and money are still the motivators, yet despite the technological progress, the citizens still look around looking for the 'better life' promised so many times at election after election. It was not found in 'informational freedom', and now the elected see the plight of their long-winded promises, as the body politic quickly turns against them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The future is pretty clear here....We give our rights away fairly easy , under the guise of alternate meanings .
Privacy is no longer an accepted norm , as information exchange , and 'status online ' thoroughly placate every instance of what we hear and see .
Over a few decades , what was known as the Bill of Rights , is finally quashed and no longer exists in spirit or applicable physical form .
...the the fight back...The fight to get back what we so willingly gave up , liberties , 'normal ' everyday freedoms , becomes physical , and ultimately violent .
Rebellion from the constant 'information barrage ' is considered anti-nationalist , and the social divide take ranks , with the strong arm of the Government put into action to quickly quell the sounds of dissent and change .
Power , and money are still the motivators , yet despite the technological progress , the citizens still look around looking for the 'better life ' promised so many times at election after election .
It was not found in 'informational freedom ' , and now the elected see the plight of their long-winded promises , as the body politic quickly turns against them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The future is pretty clear here....We give our rights away fairly easy, under the guise of alternate meanings.
Privacy is no longer an accepted norm, as information exchange, and 'status online' thoroughly placate every instance of what we hear and see.
Over a few decades, what was known as the Bill of Rights, is finally quashed and no longer exists in spirit or applicable physical form.
...the the fight back...The fight to get back what we so willingly gave up, liberties, 'normal' everyday freedoms, becomes physical, and ultimately violent.
Rebellion from the constant 'information barrage' is considered anti-nationalist, and the social divide take ranks, with the strong arm of the Government put into action to quickly quell the sounds of dissent and change.
Power, and money are still the motivators, yet despite the technological progress, the citizens still look around looking for the 'better life' promised so many times at election after election.
It was not found in 'informational freedom', and now the elected see the plight of their long-winded promises, as the body politic quickly turns against them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731632</id>
	<title>Re:The 'Everyone can see THAT?' era</title>
	<author>MidnightBrewer</author>
	<datestamp>1263217980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, privacy still exists for those who can't afford computers and so therefore have no opportunity to use Facebook. I have always treated posting stuff on the internet like throwing things on my front lawn, i.e. if I don't want random people to wander by and gawk at it, or worse yet, wander off with my stuff, then I shouldn't be putting it out in the open.</p><p>I do think Zuckerberg is full of himself and not really in touch with "people", though; he certainly doesn't lack for privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , privacy still exists for those who ca n't afford computers and so therefore have no opportunity to use Facebook .
I have always treated posting stuff on the internet like throwing things on my front lawn , i.e .
if I do n't want random people to wander by and gawk at it , or worse yet , wander off with my stuff , then I should n't be putting it out in the open.I do think Zuckerberg is full of himself and not really in touch with " people " , though ; he certainly does n't lack for privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, privacy still exists for those who can't afford computers and so therefore have no opportunity to use Facebook.
I have always treated posting stuff on the internet like throwing things on my front lawn, i.e.
if I don't want random people to wander by and gawk at it, or worse yet, wander off with my stuff, then I shouldn't be putting it out in the open.I do think Zuckerberg is full of himself and not really in touch with "people", though; he certainly doesn't lack for privacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730086</id>
	<title>Blue Coat spokeswoman?</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1263209580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't she Alton Brown's equipment connection?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't she Alton Brown 's equipment connection ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't she Alton Brown's equipment connection?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729860</id>
	<title>I expect privacy</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1263208620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I expect privacy first and foremost.  I expect the ability to share what I want with whom I want.  I do not expect some social site to determine what's private in my life.  This man is totally bonkers.</p><p>Your computer and other data maintained by you is an extension of your home.  It almost sounds like he's being influenced by Microsoft which would rather have the ability to look at you and everything you do with impunity.  NO.  I decide all things private and no one violates that because they are tired of trying to ensure my privacy with their online system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I expect privacy first and foremost .
I expect the ability to share what I want with whom I want .
I do not expect some social site to determine what 's private in my life .
This man is totally bonkers.Your computer and other data maintained by you is an extension of your home .
It almost sounds like he 's being influenced by Microsoft which would rather have the ability to look at you and everything you do with impunity .
NO. I decide all things private and no one violates that because they are tired of trying to ensure my privacy with their online system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I expect privacy first and foremost.
I expect the ability to share what I want with whom I want.
I do not expect some social site to determine what's private in my life.
This man is totally bonkers.Your computer and other data maintained by you is an extension of your home.
It almost sounds like he's being influenced by Microsoft which would rather have the ability to look at you and everything you do with impunity.
NO.  I decide all things private and no one violates that because they are tired of trying to ensure my privacy with their online system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729728</id>
	<title>First</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263208200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a great post!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a great post !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a great post!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729806</id>
	<title>what's he's really saying is...</title>
	<author>nycguy</author>
	<datestamp>1263208380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...you can't expect your privacy to get in the way of me making a fat wad of cash in a future IPO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...you ca n't expect your privacy to get in the way of me making a fat wad of cash in a future IPO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...you can't expect your privacy to get in the way of me making a fat wad of cash in a future IPO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730650</id>
	<title>The social contract is a lie. And so is the cake.</title>
	<author>Lilith's Heart-shape</author>
	<datestamp>1263212340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "new social contract" is the same as the old social contract, which boils down to "Obey your overlords, and they'll protect you unless it's more profitable for them to betray you." There is no such thing as a "social contract", and those who use such a nebulous concept to justify the intrusions of business, church, and state into the lives of individuals do so because "divine right" has been thoroughly discredited.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " new social contract " is the same as the old social contract , which boils down to " Obey your overlords , and they 'll protect you unless it 's more profitable for them to betray you .
" There is no such thing as a " social contract " , and those who use such a nebulous concept to justify the intrusions of business , church , and state into the lives of individuals do so because " divine right " has been thoroughly discredited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "new social contract" is the same as the old social contract, which boils down to "Obey your overlords, and they'll protect you unless it's more profitable for them to betray you.
" There is no such thing as a "social contract", and those who use such a nebulous concept to justify the intrusions of business, church, and state into the lives of individuals do so because "divine right" has been thoroughly discredited.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729884</id>
	<title>Creator of facebook...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263208740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Creator of internet application designed around sharing personal information believes people are fine with sharing personal information.</p><p>News at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Creator of internet application designed around sharing personal information believes people are fine with sharing personal information.News at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Creator of internet application designed around sharing personal information believes people are fine with sharing personal information.News at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731950</id>
	<title>now that's someone you should trust!</title>
	<author>Lazy Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1263220020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... with seemingly personal comments, messages, chat logs etc. etc.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>... with seemingly personal comments , messages , chat logs etc .
etc. .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... with seemingly personal comments, messages, chat logs etc.
etc. ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730276</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe, rather than privacy, it's time to forget</title>
	<author>bit9</author>
	<datestamp>1263210480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've actually been considering deleting my Facebook account for some time now, even though Facebook will undoubtedly point to some weasel words in their TOS to claim that they still own my personal data, including (but, of course, "not limited to") the right to use my name, email address, birth date, photos, and all my posts as they please for eternity.</p><p>So, even though in all likelihood, I will be unable to completely wrest my personal data away from them, I figure it's better to quit now than to keep adding more personal data to the pile. I was already seriously considering deleting my account because Facebook seemed to not give a damn about my privacy. Now that they are openly hostile to my privacy, I see no reason at all to continue having an account there.</p><p>Despite what Zuckerberg claims, for me, Facebook was <i>never</i> about sharing my personal info with the world. Facebook was a way to re-connect with old friends. Period. Not to allow my info to be broadcast to the whole world, or used for marketing purposes. Zuckerberg can go fuck himself. I'm cancelling my account TODAY!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've actually been considering deleting my Facebook account for some time now , even though Facebook will undoubtedly point to some weasel words in their TOS to claim that they still own my personal data , including ( but , of course , " not limited to " ) the right to use my name , email address , birth date , photos , and all my posts as they please for eternity.So , even though in all likelihood , I will be unable to completely wrest my personal data away from them , I figure it 's better to quit now than to keep adding more personal data to the pile .
I was already seriously considering deleting my account because Facebook seemed to not give a damn about my privacy .
Now that they are openly hostile to my privacy , I see no reason at all to continue having an account there.Despite what Zuckerberg claims , for me , Facebook was never about sharing my personal info with the world .
Facebook was a way to re-connect with old friends .
Period. Not to allow my info to be broadcast to the whole world , or used for marketing purposes .
Zuckerberg can go fuck himself .
I 'm cancelling my account TODAY !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've actually been considering deleting my Facebook account for some time now, even though Facebook will undoubtedly point to some weasel words in their TOS to claim that they still own my personal data, including (but, of course, "not limited to") the right to use my name, email address, birth date, photos, and all my posts as they please for eternity.So, even though in all likelihood, I will be unable to completely wrest my personal data away from them, I figure it's better to quit now than to keep adding more personal data to the pile.
I was already seriously considering deleting my account because Facebook seemed to not give a damn about my privacy.
Now that they are openly hostile to my privacy, I see no reason at all to continue having an account there.Despite what Zuckerberg claims, for me, Facebook was never about sharing my personal info with the world.
Facebook was a way to re-connect with old friends.
Period. Not to allow my info to be broadcast to the whole world, or used for marketing purposes.
Zuckerberg can go fuck himself.
I'm cancelling my account TODAY!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30739424</id>
	<title>Zuckerberg first ... with email.</title>
	<author>DeVilla</author>
	<datestamp>1263320100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I for one want to default to private and choose what to share and how to share it.  (With everyone or just select accounts.)  I Zuckerberg would like the rest of use to default to share he can go first.  He can offer readonly access to his email and all his other information.  (Are his medical records in a computer somewhere?)  Until then, he can remain silent.  I don't want to hear it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one want to default to private and choose what to share and how to share it .
( With everyone or just select accounts .
) I Zuckerberg would like the rest of use to default to share he can go first .
He can offer readonly access to his email and all his other information .
( Are his medical records in a computer somewhere ?
) Until then , he can remain silent .
I do n't want to hear it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one want to default to private and choose what to share and how to share it.
(With everyone or just select accounts.
)  I Zuckerberg would like the rest of use to default to share he can go first.
He can offer readonly access to his email and all his other information.
(Are his medical records in a computer somewhere?
)  Until then, he can remain silent.
I don't want to hear it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729794</id>
	<title>Yes, there are new norms ...</title>
	<author>Kiliani</author>
	<datestamp>1263208380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Privacy is no longer a social norm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...". I suppose that's correct. Stupidity and ignorance have replaced it, among other things. But that's ok with me as long as I continue to have a choice. Besides, those new "norms" can make for good entertainment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Privacy is no longer a social norm ... " .
I suppose that 's correct .
Stupidity and ignorance have replaced it , among other things .
But that 's ok with me as long as I continue to have a choice .
Besides , those new " norms " can make for good entertainment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Privacy is no longer a social norm ...".
I suppose that's correct.
Stupidity and ignorance have replaced it, among other things.
But that's ok with me as long as I continue to have a choice.
Besides, those new "norms" can make for good entertainment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729942</id>
	<title>Privacy Smivacy</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1263208920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone grab the wheel please. The driver has fallen asleep.</p><p>I think people are becoming more aware about privacy and facebook is slow to change. How many facebook "issues" lately are over privacy? Yet they seem to discount those criticisms and continue making changes that expose their users data to people that simply do not know them.</p><p>Now sure all of this comes with a "caveat emptor" clause and these people share it all without thinking. But come on, at least make a good attempt at being responsible with your user's data.</p><p>Simple fact is Facebook makes money by sharing data with 3rd parties and they want this to continue and grow. They can ignore the writing on the wall if they want but I just got a one word to say to that: Geocities</p><p>Here today gone tomorrow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone grab the wheel please .
The driver has fallen asleep.I think people are becoming more aware about privacy and facebook is slow to change .
How many facebook " issues " lately are over privacy ?
Yet they seem to discount those criticisms and continue making changes that expose their users data to people that simply do not know them.Now sure all of this comes with a " caveat emptor " clause and these people share it all without thinking .
But come on , at least make a good attempt at being responsible with your user 's data.Simple fact is Facebook makes money by sharing data with 3rd parties and they want this to continue and grow .
They can ignore the writing on the wall if they want but I just got a one word to say to that : GeocitiesHere today gone tomorrow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone grab the wheel please.
The driver has fallen asleep.I think people are becoming more aware about privacy and facebook is slow to change.
How many facebook "issues" lately are over privacy?
Yet they seem to discount those criticisms and continue making changes that expose their users data to people that simply do not know them.Now sure all of this comes with a "caveat emptor" clause and these people share it all without thinking.
But come on, at least make a good attempt at being responsible with your user's data.Simple fact is Facebook makes money by sharing data with 3rd parties and they want this to continue and grow.
They can ignore the writing on the wall if they want but I just got a one word to say to that: GeocitiesHere today gone tomorrow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729978</id>
	<title>There is a difference between...</title>
	<author>davecrusoe</author>
	<datestamp>1263209100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a difference between something that is not a social norm, and something that is not a primary consideration OR an option - until it's too late!
</p><p>Website and web service users seem very much open to trying new systems; and even letting people, typically friends, view their information. That's no big surprise, and predates websites like Facebook.
</p><p>On the other hand, websites like Facebook are increasingly opening users' data to the world - reacting to the data on their systems! - and providing users with limited opportunities to change that fact. Isn't it the case that Facebook recently added new "features", such as extended friend network update viewing, and then responded to privacy outcries by building-in limited mechanisms to control the privacy of information?
</p><p>Furthermore, users are keen to try services without really understanding the possibility that their information ISN'T private -- until it's too late. For example, the user who is rejected from a job application because of his/her photos and/or writing on Facebook is likely to restrict access in the future, as a response to the openness of their personal life.
</p><p>So: I reject Zuckerburg's notion that privacy is changing, and instead suggest that the nature in which private information is treated as private information, by companies that offer users services, is changing! Changing for the better of their wallets, without a doubt.
</p><p>Cheers, <br>
--Dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a difference between something that is not a social norm , and something that is not a primary consideration OR an option - until it 's too late !
Website and web service users seem very much open to trying new systems ; and even letting people , typically friends , view their information .
That 's no big surprise , and predates websites like Facebook .
On the other hand , websites like Facebook are increasingly opening users ' data to the world - reacting to the data on their systems !
- and providing users with limited opportunities to change that fact .
Is n't it the case that Facebook recently added new " features " , such as extended friend network update viewing , and then responded to privacy outcries by building-in limited mechanisms to control the privacy of information ?
Furthermore , users are keen to try services without really understanding the possibility that their information IS N'T private -- until it 's too late .
For example , the user who is rejected from a job application because of his/her photos and/or writing on Facebook is likely to restrict access in the future , as a response to the openness of their personal life .
So : I reject Zuckerburg 's notion that privacy is changing , and instead suggest that the nature in which private information is treated as private information , by companies that offer users services , is changing !
Changing for the better of their wallets , without a doubt .
Cheers , --Dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a difference between something that is not a social norm, and something that is not a primary consideration OR an option - until it's too late!
Website and web service users seem very much open to trying new systems; and even letting people, typically friends, view their information.
That's no big surprise, and predates websites like Facebook.
On the other hand, websites like Facebook are increasingly opening users' data to the world - reacting to the data on their systems!
- and providing users with limited opportunities to change that fact.
Isn't it the case that Facebook recently added new "features", such as extended friend network update viewing, and then responded to privacy outcries by building-in limited mechanisms to control the privacy of information?
Furthermore, users are keen to try services without really understanding the possibility that their information ISN'T private -- until it's too late.
For example, the user who is rejected from a job application because of his/her photos and/or writing on Facebook is likely to restrict access in the future, as a response to the openness of their personal life.
So: I reject Zuckerburg's notion that privacy is changing, and instead suggest that the nature in which private information is treated as private information, by companies that offer users services, is changing!
Changing for the better of their wallets, without a doubt.
Cheers, 
--Dave</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729894</id>
	<title>Re:Better ads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263208740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  His true customers are the advertisers, the developers who make the games.  People who have FB accounts are visitors.  They are not the ones shelling the dollars over to FB.</p><p>Of course, this is just in FB's interests to have zero privacy so they get the maximum ad revenue.  FB apps already ask for way more permissions than they ever really need.</p><p>Long term, this is not a good attitude to take.  MySpace made this mistake, and when something new came along, they were abandoned just like Orkut and many other networks.  The FB end users are the guys that will keep the site running.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
His true customers are the advertisers , the developers who make the games .
People who have FB accounts are visitors .
They are not the ones shelling the dollars over to FB.Of course , this is just in FB 's interests to have zero privacy so they get the maximum ad revenue .
FB apps already ask for way more permissions than they ever really need.Long term , this is not a good attitude to take .
MySpace made this mistake , and when something new came along , they were abandoned just like Orkut and many other networks .
The FB end users are the guys that will keep the site running .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
His true customers are the advertisers, the developers who make the games.
People who have FB accounts are visitors.
They are not the ones shelling the dollars over to FB.Of course, this is just in FB's interests to have zero privacy so they get the maximum ad revenue.
FB apps already ask for way more permissions than they ever really need.Long term, this is not a good attitude to take.
MySpace made this mistake, and when something new came along, they were abandoned just like Orkut and many other networks.
The FB end users are the guys that will keep the site running.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730502</id>
	<title>Actually, I have no expectations for Facebook.</title>
	<author>EllF</author>
	<datestamp>1263211500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, that's it for me. I just cancelled Facebook; I think there's a deeply frightening assumption being made by Zuckerberg, and the candy of Facebook is not worth the marketing nonsense that it will likely bring, or the endorsement of the generally poor behavior of the CEO. At least from where I'm sitting, the only option anyone has to disagree is to deactivate their account, citing privacy concerns.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , that 's it for me .
I just cancelled Facebook ; I think there 's a deeply frightening assumption being made by Zuckerberg , and the candy of Facebook is not worth the marketing nonsense that it will likely bring , or the endorsement of the generally poor behavior of the CEO .
At least from where I 'm sitting , the only option anyone has to disagree is to deactivate their account , citing privacy concerns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, that's it for me.
I just cancelled Facebook; I think there's a deeply frightening assumption being made by Zuckerberg, and the candy of Facebook is not worth the marketing nonsense that it will likely bring, or the endorsement of the generally poor behavior of the CEO.
At least from where I'm sitting, the only option anyone has to disagree is to deactivate their account, citing privacy concerns.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731270</id>
	<title>Re:Better ads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263215640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do your friends use Facebook?  What if they post pictures of you?  What if they talk about you?  What if your coworkers talk about you?  Voila, you're on Facebook and there went your "head in the sand" safety net.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do your friends use Facebook ?
What if they post pictures of you ?
What if they talk about you ?
What if your coworkers talk about you ?
Voila , you 're on Facebook and there went your " head in the sand " safety net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do your friends use Facebook?
What if they post pictures of you?
What if they talk about you?
What if your coworkers talk about you?
Voila, you're on Facebook and there went your "head in the sand" safety net.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30734724</id>
	<title>Re:The new social contract</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1263292500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, you're free to think whatever you like. Just don't tell anyone what you're thinking.<br> <br>If you do happen to tell someone, <b>kill them!</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you 're free to think whatever you like .
Just do n't tell anyone what you 're thinking .
If you do happen to tell someone , kill them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you're free to think whatever you like.
Just don't tell anyone what you're thinking.
If you do happen to tell someone, kill them!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730684</id>
	<title>Re:Forget privacy ... on Facebook anyway.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263212580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Since it doesn't allow you to distinguish between "work friends" and "party friends" and "closet friends"</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>What you want is compartmentalization of your life. In the days of old, this wasn't so much expected, but these days it is.</p></div></blockquote><p>May I suggest that some of you that see things this way might have a multiple personality disorder? </p><p>And what is a "closet" friend? I'd take that as a misspelling, but somehow I wonder if you don't somehow mean, "friends that I don't want my other friends to know about". </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since it does n't allow you to distinguish between " work friends " and " party friends " and " closet friends " What you want is compartmentalization of your life .
In the days of old , this was n't so much expected , but these days it is.May I suggest that some of you that see things this way might have a multiple personality disorder ?
And what is a " closet " friend ?
I 'd take that as a misspelling , but somehow I wonder if you do n't somehow mean , " friends that I do n't want my other friends to know about " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since it doesn't allow you to distinguish between "work friends" and "party friends" and "closet friends"What you want is compartmentalization of your life.
In the days of old, this wasn't so much expected, but these days it is.May I suggest that some of you that see things this way might have a multiple personality disorder?
And what is a "closet" friend?
I'd take that as a misspelling, but somehow I wonder if you don't somehow mean, "friends that I don't want my other friends to know about". 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730708</id>
	<title>If the governement monitors internet usage...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263212640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...they're going to find out that everyone watches porn, everyone uses online banking, everyone types drunk ramblings in mails, writes the dumbest comments on youtube and posts the dumbest photos on facebook. What are they going to do. Lock everyone up? If an efficient governement knows everything from everyone, then everyone who does bad can be locked up, and the rest can live on. Isn't that good? I don't think they're going to lock up everyone for the slightest little thing like in "1984", after all the governement IS the people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...they 're going to find out that everyone watches porn , everyone uses online banking , everyone types drunk ramblings in mails , writes the dumbest comments on youtube and posts the dumbest photos on facebook .
What are they going to do .
Lock everyone up ?
If an efficient governement knows everything from everyone , then everyone who does bad can be locked up , and the rest can live on .
Is n't that good ?
I do n't think they 're going to lock up everyone for the slightest little thing like in " 1984 " , after all the governement IS the people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...they're going to find out that everyone watches porn, everyone uses online banking, everyone types drunk ramblings in mails, writes the dumbest comments on youtube and posts the dumbest photos on facebook.
What are they going to do.
Lock everyone up?
If an efficient governement knows everything from everyone, then everyone who does bad can be locked up, and the rest can live on.
Isn't that good?
I don't think they're going to lock up everyone for the slightest little thing like in "1984", after all the governement IS the people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729812</id>
	<title>Privacy is dead, get over it</title>
	<author>mbstone</author>
	<datestamp>1263208440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsxxsrn2Tfs" title="youtube.com">Privacy is dead, get over it</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Privacy is dead , get over it [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privacy is dead, get over it [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30740824</id>
	<title>Re:Forget privacy ... on Facebook anyway.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263325320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>*do* require an expectation of privacy, ranging from private sexual lives</p></div></blockquote><p>You've got it backwards.  Your private sexual life requires privacy, but it's simply because society doesn't want to see your hairy ass humping a pillow.  We thank you for keeping that private.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* do * require an expectation of privacy , ranging from private sexual livesYou 've got it backwards .
Your private sexual life requires privacy , but it 's simply because society does n't want to see your hairy ass humping a pillow .
We thank you for keeping that private .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*do* require an expectation of privacy, ranging from private sexual livesYou've got it backwards.
Your private sexual life requires privacy, but it's simply because society doesn't want to see your hairy ass humping a pillow.
We thank you for keeping that private.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731844</id>
	<title>Careful there.</title>
	<author>Estanislao Martínez</author>
	<datestamp>1263219300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm sorry, but if you use Facebook, you have no expectation of privacy. Anything and everything you put into Facebook should be considered public knowledge.</p></div></blockquote><p>Other people have brought up the issue of other people you know putting up information about you on the site, so I won't repeat that one.

</p><p>However, I think even what you're saying is very dangerous.  Sure, I understand the practical issues about why you should be skeptical that any information you put up on Facebook will remain private; let's call these the "well, duh" reasons you shouldn't expect privacy.  These are things like the fact that Facebook make backups, that Facebook employees may look at info you don't want them to look, that Facebook may be subject to a security breach, etc.  I'm sure we'll agree on nearly all of these.

</p><p>What I still would be very, very wary about is that your comment can be read as a leap of logic that starts from the "well, duh" reasons for rejecting an expectation of privacy on Facebook, and ends up with some kind <b>legally exculpatory</b> rejection of the expectation of privacy.   In other words, I'm worried about people using the reasons why it is <b>unwise in practice</b> to put private information on Facebook as a <b>legal justification</b> that Facebook should be able disclose and use that information to their hearts' will.

</p><p>Another way of putting it: the exact same "well, duh" arguments about unreasonable expectations of privacy can be transplanted word-by-word to other cases where we <b>do</b> mandate an expectation of privacy.  Say, for example, we could rephrase your comment this way to make the same argument about hospital emergency rooms (or any medical office, really):</p><blockquote><div><p>"I'm sorry, but if you go to the hospital ER, you have no expectation of privacy.  Anything and everything you tell to the ER personnel should be considered public knowledge."</p></div></blockquote><p>The same kinds of reasons why it might be <b>unwise in practice</b> to reveal certain details about yourself to Facebook apply just as well to revealing facts about yourself to the hospital ER personnel.  But doesn't follow that you have no legal expectation of privacy in your dealings with the hospital.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but if you use Facebook , you have no expectation of privacy .
Anything and everything you put into Facebook should be considered public knowledge.Other people have brought up the issue of other people you know putting up information about you on the site , so I wo n't repeat that one .
However , I think even what you 're saying is very dangerous .
Sure , I understand the practical issues about why you should be skeptical that any information you put up on Facebook will remain private ; let 's call these the " well , duh " reasons you should n't expect privacy .
These are things like the fact that Facebook make backups , that Facebook employees may look at info you do n't want them to look , that Facebook may be subject to a security breach , etc .
I 'm sure we 'll agree on nearly all of these .
What I still would be very , very wary about is that your comment can be read as a leap of logic that starts from the " well , duh " reasons for rejecting an expectation of privacy on Facebook , and ends up with some kind legally exculpatory rejection of the expectation of privacy .
In other words , I 'm worried about people using the reasons why it is unwise in practice to put private information on Facebook as a legal justification that Facebook should be able disclose and use that information to their hearts ' will .
Another way of putting it : the exact same " well , duh " arguments about unreasonable expectations of privacy can be transplanted word-by-word to other cases where we do mandate an expectation of privacy .
Say , for example , we could rephrase your comment this way to make the same argument about hospital emergency rooms ( or any medical office , really ) : " I 'm sorry , but if you go to the hospital ER , you have no expectation of privacy .
Anything and everything you tell to the ER personnel should be considered public knowledge .
" The same kinds of reasons why it might be unwise in practice to reveal certain details about yourself to Facebook apply just as well to revealing facts about yourself to the hospital ER personnel .
But does n't follow that you have no legal expectation of privacy in your dealings with the hospital .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but if you use Facebook, you have no expectation of privacy.
Anything and everything you put into Facebook should be considered public knowledge.Other people have brought up the issue of other people you know putting up information about you on the site, so I won't repeat that one.
However, I think even what you're saying is very dangerous.
Sure, I understand the practical issues about why you should be skeptical that any information you put up on Facebook will remain private; let's call these the "well, duh" reasons you shouldn't expect privacy.
These are things like the fact that Facebook make backups, that Facebook employees may look at info you don't want them to look, that Facebook may be subject to a security breach, etc.
I'm sure we'll agree on nearly all of these.
What I still would be very, very wary about is that your comment can be read as a leap of logic that starts from the "well, duh" reasons for rejecting an expectation of privacy on Facebook, and ends up with some kind legally exculpatory rejection of the expectation of privacy.
In other words, I'm worried about people using the reasons why it is unwise in practice to put private information on Facebook as a legal justification that Facebook should be able disclose and use that information to their hearts' will.
Another way of putting it: the exact same "well, duh" arguments about unreasonable expectations of privacy can be transplanted word-by-word to other cases where we do mandate an expectation of privacy.
Say, for example, we could rephrase your comment this way to make the same argument about hospital emergency rooms (or any medical office, really):"I'm sorry, but if you go to the hospital ER, you have no expectation of privacy.
Anything and everything you tell to the ER personnel should be considered public knowledge.
"The same kinds of reasons why it might be unwise in practice to reveal certain details about yourself to Facebook apply just as well to revealing facts about yourself to the hospital ER personnel.
But doesn't follow that you have no legal expectation of privacy in your dealings with the hospital.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730452</id>
	<title>The Internet is a Public Space</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1263211260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>By default, the internet is a public space.  It's like a mall, or a popular part of the city.  There is no expectation of privacy at the city park or at Wal-Mart.  Anything you display in those places will be seen by anyone passing by.  Same for the internet.<br>Social network spaces are public as well.  Like a bar with no list, cover and barely any dress code.  They are designed this way to encourage personal connections and interconnections.  The idea is to build an emotional attachment to the tool by osmosis from the emotional attachment to the personal content shared in the space.  This "locks you in" and then they turn that into dollars.  It is not to Facebook's advantage to limit the scope of interaction.  The more of your life that is exposed, the more of your life is involved, the more YOU are involved.<br>Some places are "members only", but they are not the norm.  It is harder for them to gain audiance, and easier for people to depart.  People are not as exposed, they are not as emotionally invested themselves, or in others.<br> <br>This seems to be the nature of social networking.  Exposing one's information in exchange for becoming part of the community.  I'm pretty sure there's a great sci-fi cult novel in there some where.</htmltext>
<tokenext>By default , the internet is a public space .
It 's like a mall , or a popular part of the city .
There is no expectation of privacy at the city park or at Wal-Mart .
Anything you display in those places will be seen by anyone passing by .
Same for the internet.Social network spaces are public as well .
Like a bar with no list , cover and barely any dress code .
They are designed this way to encourage personal connections and interconnections .
The idea is to build an emotional attachment to the tool by osmosis from the emotional attachment to the personal content shared in the space .
This " locks you in " and then they turn that into dollars .
It is not to Facebook 's advantage to limit the scope of interaction .
The more of your life that is exposed , the more of your life is involved , the more YOU are involved.Some places are " members only " , but they are not the norm .
It is harder for them to gain audiance , and easier for people to depart .
People are not as exposed , they are not as emotionally invested themselves , or in others .
This seems to be the nature of social networking .
Exposing one 's information in exchange for becoming part of the community .
I 'm pretty sure there 's a great sci-fi cult novel in there some where .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By default, the internet is a public space.
It's like a mall, or a popular part of the city.
There is no expectation of privacy at the city park or at Wal-Mart.
Anything you display in those places will be seen by anyone passing by.
Same for the internet.Social network spaces are public as well.
Like a bar with no list, cover and barely any dress code.
They are designed this way to encourage personal connections and interconnections.
The idea is to build an emotional attachment to the tool by osmosis from the emotional attachment to the personal content shared in the space.
This "locks you in" and then they turn that into dollars.
It is not to Facebook's advantage to limit the scope of interaction.
The more of your life that is exposed, the more of your life is involved, the more YOU are involved.Some places are "members only", but they are not the norm.
It is harder for them to gain audiance, and easier for people to depart.
People are not as exposed, they are not as emotionally invested themselves, or in others.
This seems to be the nature of social networking.
Exposing one's information in exchange for becoming part of the community.
I'm pretty sure there's a great sci-fi cult novel in there some where.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732166</id>
	<title>Re:Better ads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263221520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh look, another "I'm sorry, but" poster who is anything but sorry. Disingenuousness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh look , another " I 'm sorry , but " poster who is anything but sorry .
Disingenuousness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh look, another "I'm sorry, but" poster who is anything but sorry.
Disingenuousness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30741920</id>
	<title>masks and kimonos</title>
	<author>epine</author>
	<datestamp>1263329880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/01/17538" title="wired.com">Sun on Privacy: 'Get Over It'</a> [wired.com]</p><p><a href="http://www.sojones.com/news/1636-facebook-revenge-brother-vs-sister/" title="sojones.com">Revenge, Facebook Style: Brother 1, Sister 0</a> [sojones.com]</p><p>In the case of the second link, I don't think it's relevant whether it's true or not.  A little hint of what the world looks like with blabbing on steroids.</p><p>Social norms aren't like the 1950s any more.  Change is hardly new.  Hope Zuckerberg comprehends the risk he faces if his social network degenerates in the world's largest permanent-ink bathroom wall.  Fortunately, many young people can consult their hippie grandparents on divorcing their youthful indiscretions.</p><p>What I do agree with is the shift of attitude regarding the people who put nothing out there at all.  A blank slate is not a clean slate.  Most likely, it's a control freak.  There are, of course, many good career options for the blank slates in our midst within the agencies of denial, some of which have (or will soon have) employees within their HR department to construct on your behalf an online social life of least suspicion.</p><p>I see the world becoming divided into the masks and the kimonos, fresh new ideological poles for a brave new world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sun on Privacy : 'Get Over It ' [ wired.com ] Revenge , Facebook Style : Brother 1 , Sister 0 [ sojones.com ] In the case of the second link , I do n't think it 's relevant whether it 's true or not .
A little hint of what the world looks like with blabbing on steroids.Social norms are n't like the 1950s any more .
Change is hardly new .
Hope Zuckerberg comprehends the risk he faces if his social network degenerates in the world 's largest permanent-ink bathroom wall .
Fortunately , many young people can consult their hippie grandparents on divorcing their youthful indiscretions.What I do agree with is the shift of attitude regarding the people who put nothing out there at all .
A blank slate is not a clean slate .
Most likely , it 's a control freak .
There are , of course , many good career options for the blank slates in our midst within the agencies of denial , some of which have ( or will soon have ) employees within their HR department to construct on your behalf an online social life of least suspicion.I see the world becoming divided into the masks and the kimonos , fresh new ideological poles for a brave new world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sun on Privacy: 'Get Over It' [wired.com]Revenge, Facebook Style: Brother 1, Sister 0 [sojones.com]In the case of the second link, I don't think it's relevant whether it's true or not.
A little hint of what the world looks like with blabbing on steroids.Social norms aren't like the 1950s any more.
Change is hardly new.
Hope Zuckerberg comprehends the risk he faces if his social network degenerates in the world's largest permanent-ink bathroom wall.
Fortunately, many young people can consult their hippie grandparents on divorcing their youthful indiscretions.What I do agree with is the shift of attitude regarding the people who put nothing out there at all.
A blank slate is not a clean slate.
Most likely, it's a control freak.
There are, of course, many good career options for the blank slates in our midst within the agencies of denial, some of which have (or will soon have) employees within their HR department to construct on your behalf an online social life of least suspicion.I see the world becoming divided into the masks and the kimonos, fresh new ideological poles for a brave new world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730536</id>
	<title>Re:The new social contract</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263211680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fear to think or act? That's short sighted nonsense. If there was no privacy then we would achieve massive reform. I would be surprised if the opposite of mass paranoia did not occur. There's no reason to keep everything private after you're free to see everybody else does the same sort of things. There's no desire to spy on everyone when we're all open.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fear to think or act ?
That 's short sighted nonsense .
If there was no privacy then we would achieve massive reform .
I would be surprised if the opposite of mass paranoia did not occur .
There 's no reason to keep everything private after you 're free to see everybody else does the same sort of things .
There 's no desire to spy on everyone when we 're all open .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fear to think or act?
That's short sighted nonsense.
If there was no privacy then we would achieve massive reform.
I would be surprised if the opposite of mass paranoia did not occur.
There's no reason to keep everything private after you're free to see everybody else does the same sort of things.
There's no desire to spy on everyone when we're all open.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730066</id>
	<title>Put your money where your mouth is, bitch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263209520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.facebook.com/zuck" title="facebook.com">http://www.facebook.com/zuck</a> [facebook.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.facebook.com/zuck [ facebook.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.facebook.com/zuck [facebook.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730054</id>
	<title>With this technology...</title>
	<author>Thelasko</author>
	<datestamp>1263209460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>we have finally defeated privacy!<br> <br>
-Better Off Ted</htmltext>
<tokenext>we have finally defeated privacy !
-Better Off Ted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we have finally defeated privacy!
-Better Off Ted</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731806</id>
	<title>How abt god mode??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263219120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://therumpus.net/2010/01/conversations-about-the-internet-5-anonymous-facebook-employee</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //therumpus.net/2010/01/conversations-about-the-internet-5-anonymous-facebook-employee</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://therumpus.net/2010/01/conversations-about-the-internet-5-anonymous-facebook-employee</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729858</id>
	<title>Re:Better ads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263208620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Countdown to Zuckerberg's SSN being posted here in 3....2....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Countdown to Zuckerberg 's SSN being posted here in 3....2... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Countdown to Zuckerberg's SSN being posted here in 3....2....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30736912</id>
	<title>Stupid scumbag</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263311040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This clueless idiot needs to be smacked upside the head.  Social networking is a passing fad.  Even now people are realizing that they DO want privacy and DON'T want these sites broadcasting their info all over the net.  If you are intelligent, you don't use social networking because it is a major vector for malware, viruses and identity theft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This clueless idiot needs to be smacked upside the head .
Social networking is a passing fad .
Even now people are realizing that they DO want privacy and DO N'T want these sites broadcasting their info all over the net .
If you are intelligent , you do n't use social networking because it is a major vector for malware , viruses and identity theft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This clueless idiot needs to be smacked upside the head.
Social networking is a passing fad.
Even now people are realizing that they DO want privacy and DON'T want these sites broadcasting their info all over the net.
If you are intelligent, you don't use social networking because it is a major vector for malware, viruses and identity theft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30745064</id>
	<title>Re:A little privacy 101 lesson for Zuckerberg</title>
	<author>mattpalmer1086</author>
	<datestamp>1263302580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right on.  Mod parent up!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right on .
Mod parent up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right on.
Mod parent up!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729936</id>
	<title>Go ahead, Zuckerberg.</title>
	<author>Lilith's Heart-shape</author>
	<datestamp>1263208920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Keep fucking with my privacy settings. Keep on assuming that I want to share everything with every jerkoff on Facebook. I'll just keep locking my shit down. And if you want to make that impossible, know that I lived happily without Facebook once. I can easily remember how to do so again.

Remember your place while you still have one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep fucking with my privacy settings .
Keep on assuming that I want to share everything with every jerkoff on Facebook .
I 'll just keep locking my shit down .
And if you want to make that impossible , know that I lived happily without Facebook once .
I can easily remember how to do so again .
Remember your place while you still have one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep fucking with my privacy settings.
Keep on assuming that I want to share everything with every jerkoff on Facebook.
I'll just keep locking my shit down.
And if you want to make that impossible, know that I lived happily without Facebook once.
I can easily remember how to do so again.
Remember your place while you still have one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731242</id>
	<title>Re:The look at me era</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263215520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>
Facebook is designed not just to collect data, but also metadata which allows our privacy to be violated in an entirely new way.
</i></p></div>
</blockquote><p>
If you agreed to it when you accepted Facebook's user agreement, then your privacy is <i>not</i> being violated. So all you have to do here is review that agreement and see if the data, or metadata, is covered in the document you said "sure, fine" to when you joined Facebook. If it's <i>not</i> in there, then you should call a lawyer. If it is, you're actually complaining about something <i>you</i> did, not what Facebook is doing.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook is designed not just to collect data , but also metadata which allows our privacy to be violated in an entirely new way .
If you agreed to it when you accepted Facebook 's user agreement , then your privacy is not being violated .
So all you have to do here is review that agreement and see if the data , or metadata , is covered in the document you said " sure , fine " to when you joined Facebook .
If it 's not in there , then you should call a lawyer .
If it is , you 're actually complaining about something you did , not what Facebook is doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
Facebook is designed not just to collect data, but also metadata which allows our privacy to be violated in an entirely new way.
If you agreed to it when you accepted Facebook's user agreement, then your privacy is not being violated.
So all you have to do here is review that agreement and see if the data, or metadata, is covered in the document you said "sure, fine" to when you joined Facebook.
If it's not in there, then you should call a lawyer.
If it is, you're actually complaining about something you did, not what Facebook is doing.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729868</id>
	<title>Maybe, rather than privacy, it's time to forget...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263208680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Facebook.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730140</id>
	<title>Selection bias</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1263209820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The people who want to live on Big Brother, but aren't trashy enough to get in on the show, feel free. And that's what this dude sees, he sees everything people do share. Hint: Lots and lots of people do lots and lots of things they don't put on Facebook. I'm on it, it's basically a contact page, I answer some event invites and that's pretty much it. send me another lame game invite and I'll gladly ignore it. My real life is far, far away from Facebook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who want to live on Big Brother , but are n't trashy enough to get in on the show , feel free .
And that 's what this dude sees , he sees everything people do share .
Hint : Lots and lots of people do lots and lots of things they do n't put on Facebook .
I 'm on it , it 's basically a contact page , I answer some event invites and that 's pretty much it .
send me another lame game invite and I 'll gladly ignore it .
My real life is far , far away from Facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who want to live on Big Brother, but aren't trashy enough to get in on the show, feel free.
And that's what this dude sees, he sees everything people do share.
Hint: Lots and lots of people do lots and lots of things they don't put on Facebook.
I'm on it, it's basically a contact page, I answer some event invites and that's pretty much it.
send me another lame game invite and I'll gladly ignore it.
My real life is far, far away from Facebook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730984</id>
	<title>Forget Facebook</title>
	<author>webweave</author>
	<datestamp>1263213960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a bunch of self serving crap. He's an expert in selling other peoples information and often without their permission.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a bunch of self serving crap .
He 's an expert in selling other peoples information and often without their permission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a bunch of self serving crap.
He's an expert in selling other peoples information and often without their permission.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30734862</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe, rather than privacy, it's time to forget</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263294180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Facebook.</p></div><p>About time! Read <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook" title="guardian.co.uk" rel="nofollow">"with friends like these"</a> [guardian.co.uk]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook.About time !
Read " with friends like these " [ guardian.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook.About time!
Read "with friends like these" [guardian.co.uk]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730900</id>
	<title>Re:A very self-serving claim.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263213480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>L4D anyone?</htmltext>
<tokenext>L4D anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>L4D anyone?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733052</id>
	<title>Humbug.</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1263228660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've  studied the issue of privacy.  By that I mean I've studied the various definitions of privacy used in philosophy and law.  I've read Focault and Brandeis.  I've pondered question like whether privacy is alienable, or whether personal information is property.</p><p>I don't claim to have answers for *all* the questions of privacy, but I do think I've gained at least one morsel of insight: all issues of privacy boil down to questions of self-determination and fairness.</p><p>Consider the neighbor who plays his stereo obnoxiously loud.  Why is that lumped into "privacy" along with the neighbor who stands in the azalea bush and looks in your window?  Because it is  a restriction of your right to direct your own attention, just as the peeping tom restricts your right to walk around your house naked if you want.</p><p>Here's a thought experiment. Suppose there was a  law that forbade you from telling anyone that you cheated on your spouse.  That law is a violation of privacy, *even though it restricts the dissemination of personal information*.</p><p>Now norms and standards change.  If you live in a society where public nudity is the norm, you might not care so much about peeping tom.  But that doesn't mean you've stopped caring about control your life, that you aren't concerned with a fair distribution of power between yourself and "the public", or even that you don't mind if peeping tom sees *other* things (like your bank account numbers).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've studied the issue of privacy .
By that I mean I 've studied the various definitions of privacy used in philosophy and law .
I 've read Focault and Brandeis .
I 've pondered question like whether privacy is alienable , or whether personal information is property.I do n't claim to have answers for * all * the questions of privacy , but I do think I 've gained at least one morsel of insight : all issues of privacy boil down to questions of self-determination and fairness.Consider the neighbor who plays his stereo obnoxiously loud .
Why is that lumped into " privacy " along with the neighbor who stands in the azalea bush and looks in your window ?
Because it is a restriction of your right to direct your own attention , just as the peeping tom restricts your right to walk around your house naked if you want.Here 's a thought experiment .
Suppose there was a law that forbade you from telling anyone that you cheated on your spouse .
That law is a violation of privacy , * even though it restricts the dissemination of personal information * .Now norms and standards change .
If you live in a society where public nudity is the norm , you might not care so much about peeping tom .
But that does n't mean you 've stopped caring about control your life , that you are n't concerned with a fair distribution of power between yourself and " the public " , or even that you do n't mind if peeping tom sees * other * things ( like your bank account numbers ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've  studied the issue of privacy.
By that I mean I've studied the various definitions of privacy used in philosophy and law.
I've read Focault and Brandeis.
I've pondered question like whether privacy is alienable, or whether personal information is property.I don't claim to have answers for *all* the questions of privacy, but I do think I've gained at least one morsel of insight: all issues of privacy boil down to questions of self-determination and fairness.Consider the neighbor who plays his stereo obnoxiously loud.
Why is that lumped into "privacy" along with the neighbor who stands in the azalea bush and looks in your window?
Because it is  a restriction of your right to direct your own attention, just as the peeping tom restricts your right to walk around your house naked if you want.Here's a thought experiment.
Suppose there was a  law that forbade you from telling anyone that you cheated on your spouse.
That law is a violation of privacy, *even though it restricts the dissemination of personal information*.Now norms and standards change.
If you live in a society where public nudity is the norm, you might not care so much about peeping tom.
But that doesn't mean you've stopped caring about control your life, that you aren't concerned with a fair distribution of power between yourself and "the public", or even that you don't mind if peeping tom sees *other* things (like your bank account numbers).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731116</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy: Good for me, bad for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263214680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, that was him being victimized by facebook's new privacy policy, and then saying "I meant to do that" despite that fact that he also set everything to private again as soon as the story broke and he found out his stuff was public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that was him being victimized by facebook 's new privacy policy , and then saying " I meant to do that " despite that fact that he also set everything to private again as soon as the story broke and he found out his stuff was public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that was him being victimized by facebook's new privacy policy, and then saying "I meant to do that" despite that fact that he also set everything to private again as soon as the story broke and he found out his stuff was public.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732046</id>
	<title>Re:The look at me era</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263220560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, the law can only <strong>restrict the</strong> rights of the people;</p> </div><p>Fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , the law can only restrict the rights of the people ; Fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, the law can only restrict the rights of the people; Fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730508</id>
	<title>wtf?</title>
	<author>jasonbrown</author>
	<datestamp>1263211560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So let me get this straight.  Facebook changes their privacy guidelines and defaults to having everyone's profile be mostly open.  Then the founder of facebook says there is not the same expectation of privacy that there once was because people default to having their profiles open?  Even though facebook is the one that opened it all up (not the users)?  How is it that the will of the admins and founders of facebook is now the will of the people?  When did they earn the right to speak for my desire for privacy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So let me get this straight .
Facebook changes their privacy guidelines and defaults to having everyone 's profile be mostly open .
Then the founder of facebook says there is not the same expectation of privacy that there once was because people default to having their profiles open ?
Even though facebook is the one that opened it all up ( not the users ) ?
How is it that the will of the admins and founders of facebook is now the will of the people ?
When did they earn the right to speak for my desire for privacy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So let me get this straight.
Facebook changes their privacy guidelines and defaults to having everyone's profile be mostly open.
Then the founder of facebook says there is not the same expectation of privacy that there once was because people default to having their profiles open?
Even though facebook is the one that opened it all up (not the users)?
How is it that the will of the admins and founders of facebook is now the will of the people?
When did they earn the right to speak for my desire for privacy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733446</id>
	<title>Re:The new social contract</title>
	<author>Ibag</author>
	<datestamp>1263232200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it only creates fear for those of us who think about how they act.  If you've ever spent time on facebook, it's painfully clear that many people have no fear about what they do or say and then commit to their permanent public record.  Unless, of course, they are just too afraid to be thinking about what they are doing when they post?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it only creates fear for those of us who think about how they act .
If you 've ever spent time on facebook , it 's painfully clear that many people have no fear about what they do or say and then commit to their permanent public record .
Unless , of course , they are just too afraid to be thinking about what they are doing when they post ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it only creates fear for those of us who think about how they act.
If you've ever spent time on facebook, it's painfully clear that many people have no fear about what they do or say and then commit to their permanent public record.
Unless, of course, they are just too afraid to be thinking about what they are doing when they post?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731352</id>
	<title>Ask me again why I don't use Facebook.</title>
	<author>baomike</author>
	<datestamp>1263216300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>EOM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EOM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EOM</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30734048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30734762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30740824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30743720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30735068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30734724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30738030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30735334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30734862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30741988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30734132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30740304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30737954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30745064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30734168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_1916203_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30734724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30745064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30740304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30741988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730434
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30734762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30735334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30737954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30743720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30734862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30741920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30740824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733518
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731632
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730898
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730504
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30734168
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732276
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731242
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732488
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732034
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30735068
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730538
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731080
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733020
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731844
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30732166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731088
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30734048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30734132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30741946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_1916203.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30738030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30730726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30733900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30729950
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_1916203.30731116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
