I saw this, read it, identified with it since I don't have a Facebook or twitter, and wanted to share it with others.

Paradox: By the logic of the article, does that mean I have committed the cardinal sin the article was condemning? I know PG probably doesn't sell data to people, but still, by encouraging sharing behavior, I feel like I am helping the social networks become more entrenched.

How does one easily spread an idea which is against people easily sharing their lives, and thus, their ideas?

I read the piece and also identified with the interviewee, but felt bad for not instantly cancelling my fb account.

I like to think of HN as a positive alternative to typical social sharing sites like fb or twitter.

I wasn't aware of the notion mentioned in the interview of social sites sharing photographic data with police in other countries-- that is enough reason to get out of the social networks for me.

That said, it is safe to say that social networks are absolutely entrenched in society. As individuals we can choose to not participate, but this is effectively the same as choosing to live in a mountain outside of society.

My main hope is that the government never uses facebook for anything. No check ins, no taxes, no voting, nothing.

And I do choose to live on that mountain. Email and Skype suffice for me.

I thumbed up this article - but the title kills me. I had to re-parse it at least 3 times to be sure that I was reading it correctly.

Having failed to delete my FB account for over a year because my wife's FB profile would then lack 'in a relationship with' information (her concern, not mine), this professor's rant is encouraging me to make a stand!