On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, John C Klensin wrote:
In particular, none of [the "social network" tools] permit me to
maintain, with a single nominal identity, different circles of
acquaintances for different purposes and with different trust and
influence relationships between and within each, an issue that was
clearly understood in the literature by the time I started reading it in
the first half of the 60s.
LiveJournal allows you to subset your "friends" to provide relatively
fine-grained access control to your posts, but it doesn't let you encode
the more complicated relationship topologies that you're hinting at. In
practice most people can't be bothered with complicated privacy
arrangements and stick with friends-only or public in almost all cases.
Facebook has an intermediate level of locality-based "networks" which let
you reveal more to people physically near you (at the same university)
than to the unwashed masses, but still keep things back for your friends.
http://nymag.com/news/features/27341/ is an interesting article about
young people's attitude to privacy.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> http://dotat.at/
NORTH UTSIRE: EAST OR SOUTHEAST 3 OR 4, OCCASIONALLY 5 IN SOUTH LATER. SLIGHT
OR MODERATE. FAIR. MODERATE OR GOOD.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf