<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Facebook Fury: A Photographer&#8217;s Take</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.socialphototalk.com/facebook-fury/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.socialphototalk.com/facebook-fury/</link>
	<description>Social Media Marketing for Photographers // Photography + Community</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 05:30:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: louis vuitton for sale</title>
		<link>http://www.socialphototalk.com/facebook-fury/comment-page-1/#comment-1043</link>
		<dc:creator>louis vuitton for sale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 07:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialphototalk.com/?p=1258#comment-1043</guid>
		<description>Well , the view of the passage is totally correct ,your details is really  reasonable and  you guy give us  valuable  informative post, I totally agree the standpoint of upstairs. I often surfing on this forum when I m free and I find there are so much good &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.boots-store.co.uk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ugg boots&lt;/a&gt;  information we can learn in this forum!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well , the view of the passage is totally correct ,your details is really  reasonable and  you guy give us  valuable  informative post, I totally agree the standpoint of upstairs. I often surfing on this forum when I m free and I find there are so much good <a href="http://www.boots-store.co.uk" rel="nofollow">ugg boots</a>  information we can learn in this forum!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon</title>
		<link>http://www.socialphototalk.com/facebook-fury/comment-page-1/#comment-704</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 23:11:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialphototalk.com/?p=1258#comment-704</guid>
		<description>TOS Language aside has Facebook ever actually appropriated anyone&#039;s images in an inappropriate way?  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The only example I can think of was using avatar images of your friends next to ads.  I&#039;ve never heard of them using non-avatar images.  Have they?  Not that I condone the use of friends&#039; avatars to suggest endorsement of products...  that is a little different that taking images out of photo albums which I haven&#039;t heard of them ever attempting to do.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Regardless, I understand why they need &quot;broad coverage&quot; in their TOS since they do need to be able to display your images for you&#039;re friends and potentially next to onsite banner ads...  to me actions are way more important than TOS in this case.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TOS Language aside has Facebook ever actually appropriated anyone&#39;s images in an inappropriate way?  </p>
<p>The only example I can think of was using avatar images of your friends next to ads.  I&#39;ve never heard of them using non-avatar images.  Have they?  Not that I condone the use of friends&#39; avatars to suggest endorsement of products&#8230;  that is a little different that taking images out of photo albums which I haven&#39;t heard of them ever attempting to do.</p>
<p>Regardless, I understand why they need &#8220;broad coverage&#8221; in their TOS since they do need to be able to display your images for you&#39;re friends and potentially next to onsite banner ads&#8230;  to me actions are way more important than TOS in this case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Metroknow</title>
		<link>http://www.socialphototalk.com/facebook-fury/comment-page-1/#comment-703</link>
		<dc:creator>Metroknow</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 22:14:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialphototalk.com/?p=1258#comment-703</guid>
		<description>In general the constant &quot;shifty&quot; nature of the privacy settings really does suck - and FB&#039;s repeated practice of resetting things to open, or making new settings open, particularly without informing users meaningfully is ridiculous (it should all be closed by default IMHO, with options to open if you choose). &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;BUT, I think the recent media chatter has more to do with sensationalism than a real &quot;new&quot; threat, only because the truth is if you use the Internet, period, most of your information is easily discoverable by anybody looking for it. If you&#039;ve ever typed your social into a web site, or your birthday, or your credit card, your info is out there if people know where to look. But that&#039;s not exactly newsworthy.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;On the biz side, I think it&#039;s foolish to dismiss FB wholesale based on some lightweight news reports and sensationalized headlines. The solution is simple: Just don&#039;t put critical information in in the first place. Only type in the pieces you want to share with everybody. Provide the minimum, like a means of contacting you and what your business is about, but not your birthday, or any other piece of info you use to tie into your security settings elsewhere (favorite pet&#039;s name, city you were born, etc.)), and review your security settings once in a while. If you don&#039;t provide the info in the first place that you don&#039;t want shared with everyone, you shouldn&#039;t have much of a problem.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In general the constant &#8220;shifty&#8221; nature of the privacy settings really does suck &#8211; and FB&#39;s repeated practice of resetting things to open, or making new settings open, particularly without informing users meaningfully is ridiculous (it should all be closed by default IMHO, with options to open if you choose). </p>
<p>BUT, I think the recent media chatter has more to do with sensationalism than a real &#8220;new&#8221; threat, only because the truth is if you use the Internet, period, most of your information is easily discoverable by anybody looking for it. If you&#39;ve ever typed your social into a web site, or your birthday, or your credit card, your info is out there if people know where to look. But that&#39;s not exactly newsworthy.</p>
<p>On the biz side, I think it&#39;s foolish to dismiss FB wholesale based on some lightweight news reports and sensationalized headlines. The solution is simple: Just don&#39;t put critical information in in the first place. Only type in the pieces you want to share with everybody. Provide the minimum, like a means of contacting you and what your business is about, but not your birthday, or any other piece of info you use to tie into your security settings elsewhere (favorite pet&#39;s name, city you were born, etc.)), and review your security settings once in a while. If you don&#39;t provide the info in the first place that you don&#39;t want shared with everyone, you shouldn&#39;t have much of a problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nerdliness</title>
		<link>http://www.socialphototalk.com/facebook-fury/comment-page-1/#comment-702</link>
		<dc:creator>nerdliness</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 21:59:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialphototalk.com/?p=1258#comment-702</guid>
		<description>My biggest beefs with the Facebook TOS and privacy settings are that a) they seem to default to levels that a lot of people aren&#039;t comfortable with and/or aware of and b) whenever they adjust things, it seems that my old settings are tossed out the window.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Oh, and I&#039;m tired of them pimping my profile out and encouraging people to friend me. I know that&#039;s counter to the whole &quot;social&quot; aspect, but if I don&#039;t want certain people to find me I should have the option to stay hidden (yes, I know, nobody&#039;s MAKING me use the service to begin with...).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My biggest beefs with the Facebook TOS and privacy settings are that a) they seem to default to levels that a lot of people aren&#39;t comfortable with and/or aware of and b) whenever they adjust things, it seems that my old settings are tossed out the window.</p>
<p>Oh, and I&#39;m tired of them pimping my profile out and encouraging people to friend me. I know that&#39;s counter to the whole &#8220;social&#8221; aspect, but if I don&#39;t want certain people to find me I should have the option to stay hidden (yes, I know, nobody&#39;s MAKING me use the service to begin with&#8230;).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Elizabeth Buckwalter</title>
		<link>http://www.socialphototalk.com/facebook-fury/comment-page-1/#comment-701</link>
		<dc:creator>Elizabeth Buckwalter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 21:51:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialphototalk.com/?p=1258#comment-701</guid>
		<description>To use this policy without losing your photos, just put a few up, and then have a link to your gallery.  You can then put several fingerprints in the photo, so even if Facebook uses it, it would make them look silly if they claim it&#039;s theirs and your name is splashed across it.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;And honestly, it&#039;s probably their lawyers trying to reduce liability.  Like if someone uses Facebook for their album with those being the only copies and then sues Facebook if the photos are lost.  It&#039;s another product of our sue happy society.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To use this policy without losing your photos, just put a few up, and then have a link to your gallery.  You can then put several fingerprints in the photo, so even if Facebook uses it, it would make them look silly if they claim it&#39;s theirs and your name is splashed across it.</p>
<p>And honestly, it&#39;s probably their lawyers trying to reduce liability.  Like if someone uses Facebook for their album with those being the only copies and then sues Facebook if the photos are lost.  It&#39;s another product of our sue happy society.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JustinS</title>
		<link>http://www.socialphototalk.com/facebook-fury/comment-page-1/#comment-700</link>
		<dc:creator>JustinS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 16:45:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.socialphototalk.com/?p=1258#comment-700</guid>
		<description>My biggest beefs with the Facebook TOS and privacy settings are that a) they seem to default to levels that a lot of people aren&#039;t comfortable with and/or aware of and b) whenever they adjust things, it seems that my old settings are tossed out the window.

Oh, and I&#039;m tired of them pimping my profile out and encouraging people to friend me. I know that&#039;s counter to the whole &quot;social&quot; aspect, but if I don&#039;t want certain people to find me I should have the option to stay hidden (yes, I know, nobody&#039;s MAKING me use the service to begin with...).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My biggest beefs with the Facebook TOS and privacy settings are that a) they seem to default to levels that a lot of people aren&#8217;t comfortable with and/or aware of and b) whenever they adjust things, it seems that my old settings are tossed out the window.</p>
<p>Oh, and I&#8217;m tired of them pimping my profile out and encouraging people to friend me. I know that&#8217;s counter to the whole &#8220;social&#8221; aspect, but if I don&#8217;t want certain people to find me I should have the option to stay hidden (yes, I know, nobody&#8217;s MAKING me use the service to begin with&#8230;).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

