rupagrg
Guest
facebook killer:
Facebook believes you should have only one identity for everyone in your life, and if you live differently, you lack integrity. In real life, most of us have separate identities for our different roles. Facebook needs to implement easy-to-use tools to allow people to manage their multiple roles and identities. Either that, or Facebook will ultimately succumb to a competitor that does.
My colleague Keith Dawson wrote a terrific and courageous post explaining the problem from his perspective. He's active in a local church and doesn't want to mix that role with his other roles in life. It's not a question of shame, or even what I usually think of as "privacy." He just doesn't want to cross the streams.
Up until now, I did not understand Keith's (and, by extension, other people's) aversion to Facebook. I thought the people who had problems on Facebook would be those who have something to hide: people with sexual kinks, people recovering from substance abuse or other psychological problems, criminals, or people who speak out against authority and fear reprisal.
There's nothing wrong with any of those things. But I fit into none of those categories. I live a pretty quiet life. And I've been quite comfortable using Facebook with most of the privacy settings thrown wide open to the public; I don't really post anything I wouldn't want the general public to know. So, for example, if I'm angry at someone, I just don't write about it on Facebook (or Twitter, or here, or my blog, etc.). I resolve the problem privately.
But discussing Keith's Facebook problems with him last week, I suddenly got it. It's not about what I usually think of as privacy, about going behind a locked door and having a conversation with your doctor or doing something you don't want the world to see. It's about not crossing the streams. Keith has a public persona here at The CMO Site. He has another public persona in his church. And he doesn't want the two connected with each other. I get that. It's called "work-life separation," and sensible people value it, even though I and many other Americans aren't good at practicing it.
Facebook, by explicit policy, makes that kind of work-life separation impossible. Or, at least, very difficult.
This is something that I'm hopeful will change for Facebook as Mark Zuckerberg gets older. Until now, he's had nothing to hide from anyone. He's white, heterosexual, young, Harvard-educated, American, and cisgendered. More recently, he's a freaking billionaire. So it's easy for him to say a person should have only one identity to the public world, and to do anything else lacks integrity.For more information,please visit it.
Facebook believes you should have only one identity for everyone in your life, and if you live differently, you lack integrity. In real life, most of us have separate identities for our different roles. Facebook needs to implement easy-to-use tools to allow people to manage their multiple roles and identities. Either that, or Facebook will ultimately succumb to a competitor that does.
My colleague Keith Dawson wrote a terrific and courageous post explaining the problem from his perspective. He's active in a local church and doesn't want to mix that role with his other roles in life. It's not a question of shame, or even what I usually think of as "privacy." He just doesn't want to cross the streams.
Up until now, I did not understand Keith's (and, by extension, other people's) aversion to Facebook. I thought the people who had problems on Facebook would be those who have something to hide: people with sexual kinks, people recovering from substance abuse or other psychological problems, criminals, or people who speak out against authority and fear reprisal.
There's nothing wrong with any of those things. But I fit into none of those categories. I live a pretty quiet life. And I've been quite comfortable using Facebook with most of the privacy settings thrown wide open to the public; I don't really post anything I wouldn't want the general public to know. So, for example, if I'm angry at someone, I just don't write about it on Facebook (or Twitter, or here, or my blog, etc.). I resolve the problem privately.
But discussing Keith's Facebook problems with him last week, I suddenly got it. It's not about what I usually think of as privacy, about going behind a locked door and having a conversation with your doctor or doing something you don't want the world to see. It's about not crossing the streams. Keith has a public persona here at The CMO Site. He has another public persona in his church. And he doesn't want the two connected with each other. I get that. It's called "work-life separation," and sensible people value it, even though I and many other Americans aren't good at practicing it.
Facebook, by explicit policy, makes that kind of work-life separation impossible. Or, at least, very difficult.
For more informatin, please visit it.
Facebook believes you should have only one identity for everyone in your life, and if you live differently, you lack integrity. In real life, most of us have separate identities for our different roles. Facebook needs to implement easy-to-use tools to allow people to manage their multiple roles and identities. Either that, or Facebook will ultimately succumb to a competitor that does.
My colleague Keith Dawson wrote a terrific and courageous post explaining the problem from his perspective. He's active in a local church and doesn't want to mix that role with his other roles in life. It's not a question of shame, or even what I usually think of as "privacy." He just doesn't want to cross the streams.
Up until now, I did not understand Keith's (and, by extension, other people's) aversion to Facebook. I thought the people who had problems on Facebook would be those who have something to hide: people with sexual kinks, people recovering from substance abuse or other psychological problems, criminals, or people who speak out against authority and fear reprisal.
There's nothing wrong with any of those things. But I fit into none of those categories. I live a pretty quiet life. And I've been quite comfortable using Facebook with most of the privacy settings thrown wide open to the public; I don't really post anything I wouldn't want the general public to know. So, for example, if I'm angry at someone, I just don't write about it on Facebook (or Twitter, or here, or my blog, etc.). I resolve the problem privately.
But discussing Keith's Facebook problems with him last week, I suddenly got it. It's not about what I usually think of as privacy, about going behind a locked door and having a conversation with your doctor or doing something you don't want the world to see. It's about not crossing the streams. Keith has a public persona here at The CMO Site. He has another public persona in his church. And he doesn't want the two connected with each other. I get that. It's called "work-life separation," and sensible people value it, even though I and many other Americans aren't good at practicing it.
Facebook, by explicit policy, makes that kind of work-life separation impossible. Or, at least, very difficult.
For more informatin, please visit it.
Facebook believes you should have only one identity for everyone in your life, and if you live differently, you lack integrity. In real life, most of us have separate identities for our different roles. Facebook needs to implement easy-to-use tools to allow people to manage their multiple roles and identities. Either that, or Facebook will ultimately succumb to a competitor that does.
My colleague Keith Dawson wrote a terrific and courageous post explaining the problem from his perspective. He's active in a local church and doesn't want to mix that role with his other roles in life. It's not a question of shame, or even what I usually think of as "privacy." He just doesn't want to cross the streams.
Up until now, I did not understand Keith's (and, by extension, other people's) aversion to Facebook. I thought the people who had problems on Facebook would be those who have something to hide: people with sexual kinks, people recovering from substance abuse or other psychological problems, criminals, or people who speak out against authority and fear reprisal.
There's nothing wrong with any of those things. But I fit into none of those categories. I live a pretty quiet life. And I've been quite comfortable using Facebook with most of the privacy settings thrown wide open to the public; I don't really post anything I wouldn't want the general public to know. So, for example, if I'm angry at someone, I just don't write about it on Facebook (or Twitter, or here, or my blog, etc.). I resolve the problem privately.
But discussing Keith's Facebook problems with him last week, I suddenly got it. It's not about what I usually think of as privacy, about going behind a locked door and having a conversation with your doctor or doing something you don't want the world to see. It's about not crossing the streams. Keith has a public persona here at The CMO Site. He has another public persona in his church. And he doesn't want the two connected with each other. I get that. It's called "work-life separation," and sensible people value it, even though I and many other Americans aren't good at practicing it.
Facebook, by explicit policy, makes that kind of work-life separation impossible. Or, at least, very difficult.
This is something that I'm hopeful will change for Facebook as Mark Zuckerberg gets older. Until now, he's had nothing to hide from anyone. He's white, heterosexual, young, Harvard-educated, American, and cisgendered. More recently, he's a freaking billionaire. So it's easy for him to say a person should have only one identity to the public world, and to do anything else lacks integrity.For more information,please visit it.
Facebook believes you should have only one identity for everyone in your life, and if you live differently, you lack integrity. In real life, most of us have separate identities for our different roles. Facebook needs to implement easy-to-use tools to allow people to manage their multiple roles and identities. Either that, or Facebook will ultimately succumb to a competitor that does.
My colleague Keith Dawson wrote a terrific and courageous post explaining the problem from his perspective. He's active in a local church and doesn't want to mix that role with his other roles in life. It's not a question of shame, or even what I usually think of as "privacy." He just doesn't want to cross the streams.
Up until now, I did not understand Keith's (and, by extension, other people's) aversion to Facebook. I thought the people who had problems on Facebook would be those who have something to hide: people with sexual kinks, people recovering from substance abuse or other psychological problems, criminals, or people who speak out against authority and fear reprisal.
There's nothing wrong with any of those things. But I fit into none of those categories. I live a pretty quiet life. And I've been quite comfortable using Facebook with most of the privacy settings thrown wide open to the public; I don't really post anything I wouldn't want the general public to know. So, for example, if I'm angry at someone, I just don't write about it on Facebook (or Twitter, or here, or my blog, etc.). I resolve the problem privately.
But discussing Keith's Facebook problems with him last week, I suddenly got it. It's not about what I usually think of as privacy, about going behind a locked door and having a conversation with your doctor or doing something you don't want the world to see. It's about not crossing the streams. Keith has a public persona here at The CMO Site. He has another public persona in his church. And he doesn't want the two connected with each other. I get that. It's called "work-life separation," and sensible people value it, even though I and many other Americans aren't good at practicing it.
Facebook, by explicit policy, makes that kind of work-life separation impossible. Or, at least, very difficult.
For more informatin, please visit it.
Facebook believes you should have only one identity for everyone in your life, and if you live differently, you lack integrity. In real life, most of us have separate identities for our different roles. Facebook needs to implement easy-to-use tools to allow people to manage their multiple roles and identities. Either that, or Facebook will ultimately succumb to a competitor that does.
My colleague Keith Dawson wrote a terrific and courageous post explaining the problem from his perspective. He's active in a local church and doesn't want to mix that role with his other roles in life. It's not a question of shame, or even what I usually think of as "privacy." He just doesn't want to cross the streams.
Up until now, I did not understand Keith's (and, by extension, other people's) aversion to Facebook. I thought the people who had problems on Facebook would be those who have something to hide: people with sexual kinks, people recovering from substance abuse or other psychological problems, criminals, or people who speak out against authority and fear reprisal.
There's nothing wrong with any of those things. But I fit into none of those categories. I live a pretty quiet life. And I've been quite comfortable using Facebook with most of the privacy settings thrown wide open to the public; I don't really post anything I wouldn't want the general public to know. So, for example, if I'm angry at someone, I just don't write about it on Facebook (or Twitter, or here, or my blog, etc.). I resolve the problem privately.
But discussing Keith's Facebook problems with him last week, I suddenly got it. It's not about what I usually think of as privacy, about going behind a locked door and having a conversation with your doctor or doing something you don't want the world to see. It's about not crossing the streams. Keith has a public persona here at The CMO Site. He has another public persona in his church. And he doesn't want the two connected with each other. I get that. It's called "work-life separation," and sensible people value it, even though I and many other Americans aren't good at practicing it.
Facebook, by explicit policy, makes that kind of work-life separation impossible. Or, at least, very difficult.
For more informatin, please visit it.
