Facebook changes reveal public’s love for self-disclosure

The Facebook Mini-Feed has done nothing more than take our excessive disclosure of personal information and throw it in our faces. That is what has made people “furious with Facebook.” In many ways, that is exactly what we need. We need to see how much private information we give away to complete strangers. It is not surprising that the new feature has made some people uncomfortable. The unseemly lack of discretion should make us all uncomfortable.

The new Facebook features are not themselves repulsive, they merely make our own disregard for our privacy impossible to ignore. We cannot blame Facebook for our inexhaustible curiosity about the business of others and our own willingness to disclose previously personal information. We have only ourselves to blame.

We are not without a choice in the matter. We can take back our privacy – we can leave our profiles free of personal details. Nobody is entitled to know what religion you practice, what political beliefs you hold or whom you are dating. If a stranger asked you these questions, it would be rude. On Facebook, it is normal to broadcast such details to complete strangers, not to mention give those strangers photos of your weekend merriment in College Park. As the article stated, this new “feed” feature gives no new information, it just makes it painfully obvious how indiscreet we have become.

According to the mission statement on the Facebook homepage, “Facebook is an online directory that connects people through social networks.” If people connect to others by being indiscreet, we should not blame Facebook when their private life is made public. There is probably a better way to connect with your friends than posting drunken pictures for the world to see, or corresponding with a supposed “friend” through a “wall” message that is anything but private.

Facebook can be a great resource. It can also be a scary resource for learning much about a stranger. This fear of “stalkers,” while in most cases unfounded, is nonetheless a reflection of a legitimate discomfort with knowing too much about the private lives of others. It is this excessive candor and openness that should be the target of our disgust, not Facebook.

If anything, we should congratulate Facebook on a move that made it the focus of our dinner discussions and landed it on the front page of college papers across the country. Kudos to Facebook for showing, once again, that any publicity is good publicity. Hopefully this disgust will lead to a discussion of what we consider to be an appropriate level of public self-disclosure.

Martin Andrew Stern

Sophomore

Biology

This letter refers to the Sept 6, 2006 news article “Furious with Facebook“.

Giannetti endorsement wrong choice

I was shocked to read your endorsement of John Giannetti instead of Jim Rosapepe for state Senate.

You note Giannetti’s “gaffes” and “embarrassing, sloppy mistakes.” But you fail to note that these have made him virtually without influence in Annapolis – unable to be an effective champion for this campus and its students.

In contrast, you almost ignore Jim Rosapepe’s leadership role on the Board of Regents and as College Park’s delegate for 11 years and the No. 1 champion of students on this campus. The Diamondback itself called Rosapepe the “student-friendly regent” in 2003.

While Giannetti was hosting tailgate parties, Rosapepe was writing the law to reverse Gov. Robert Ehrlich’s draconian budget cuts and tuition hikes. I know because I was Student Government Association president that year and worked with him and the Democratic leadership in Annapolis to pass the law. This year, it is Rosapepe’s idea and successful fight to freeze tuition that’s saving every Maryland student hundreds of dollars.

Giannetti has talked about a College Park police force but did nothing to create one. And none has been created. On the Board of Regents, Rosapepe worked successfully to expand the campus police, expanded the city’s contract police and added hundreds of security cameras – on and off the campus.

The one political payoff Giannetti got for his loyal support for Ehrlich was $200,000 for lights in College Park. But he failed to get funding to fix Route 1 or to get the Purple Metro line, connecting College Park with Bethesda and New Carrollton, moving forward. Rosapepe, on the other hand, helped bring the Green Line to College Park years ago. Obviously, he’ll be the more effective advocate for transportation improvements.

The truth is Giannetti has not been an effective champion of College Park students. Rosapepe, as a delegate and as a regent, has been and will in the Senate. That’s the difference.

Tim Daly

Class of 2004

SGA President, 2003-04

This letter refers to the September 6, 2006 Editorial “Giannetti for Senate“.