Derek Thompson of The Atlantic recently posted an article, "Facebook Does Not Understand the Meaning of Privacy" as a response to recent comments made by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg vis-a-vis speculation that the company is selling user information to advertisers.  From Zuckerberg:

In the last 5 or 6 years, blogging has taken off in a huge way and all these different services that have people sharing all this information (sic). People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people. That social norm is just something that's evolved over time.

The Atlantic rightly points out that Facebook updates, including the "news feed" section, were initially unpopular with its base of elitist Ivy League students trying to show-off for their selective group of peers.  As an unabashed Facebook user myself, I must admit I also hated this feature at first because I was still learning how to use the old Facebook, but now I love news feed as it lets me know what my friends are up to without my having to search through their profiles manually.  When an advertisement for a teaching job in my prefecture or a new online auction site pops up to my left, I'm usually intrigued and consider investigating these products uniquely tuned to my interests.  Sometimes, I'm even on the verge of tears at the remarkable power of the free market in the information age.  However, as the Atlantic's Derek Thompson puts it:

Like a Middle Eastern country sitting on top of an ocean of oil, Facebook feels a business-driven pressure to let outsiders (ad companies) drill deep into their reserves, so they can shove Coldplay tickets in front of Coldplay fans and job listings in front of college seniors, and so forth. Facebook's incentive is entirely to move toward more openness. It's one thing to admit that a business is a business. It's another to pretend that your business objectives just happen to line up perfectly with your users' wishes, when you know very well that the opposite is true.

Since when is allowing college seniors the opportunity to view or not view job listings commensurate with Avatar-esque resource imperialism?  Comments to the article were basically dominated by people who consider private Facebook accounts to be a natural right (link contains foul language and definitely not safe for workplace consumption) as opposed to a voluntary business transaction.  Some highlights: 

Xavier says: People can't legally read my mail. They can't enter my home. We have privacy everywhere else so explain to my why an online interaction is somehow inherently different than any other in life?

From apolloguide: Zuckerberg is the equivalent of a 10 year old driving a car where he can't reach the pedals and can't see over the dashboard. This problem of jejune ignorance and credulity can only get worse. He is not capable of responsible policies when he can only see gold in his pockets. Everything else is merely brushed aside so he can concentrate on getting rich at everyone's expense. He's not unlike the elves and barons of Goldman Sachs who couldn't be bothered with regulation of bank lending. Just another grasping type preying on the uninformed.

From Joetheplumber: If users had something else besides Myspace and Facebook to turn to, I bet Zuckerburg (sic) would think twice before insulting their (sic) customers (and trying to play it off as if it's in their (sic) best interest.)

And finally, aliceq: Facebook is a complex site, but the methods for, say, keeping my work colleagues from knowing how much time I spend playing Bejeweled Blitz while still allowing me to crow to other friends who play the game are constantly changing.

That last comment was a response to me, who had this to say:

If Facebook users really felt the loss of privacy outweighed the many upsides of Facebook, they would not open accounts, and, since they are not being forced to do so, the right-to-privacy, whether it exists or not, doesn't even apply to this debate.

Privacy settings on Facebook are clear, comprehensive, and flexible. The fact that they have changed in the past reflects the changing nature of the site. The way the message board works is obvious to anyone who uses Facebook and clearly explained upon signup. If Facebook users don't want their private information being shared, they can change their privacy settings and send private messages to their friends, instead of posting on their walls, the internet equivalent of having a loud conversation during a movie. If a user is still paranoid that being photographed drunk will jeopardize his chances of being elected Governor, then he can choose to cancel his account or hope that future voters care about issues.

The idea that companies mine Facebook for targeted advertising in the same way that oil companies ravage third world nations is frankly alarmist and totally misguided. The belief that marketing Coldplay tickets to Coldplay fans (which they can then choose to buy or not buy) is a bad thing basically amounts to a rejection of the underlying tenets of free, technological society.

This rant about facebook, unbecoming of the Atlantic, suggests that if not for the courageous efforts of parentalists and widespread idiot-proofing, people would probably be throwing feces at each other.

Admittedly, that last part was a bit extreme, but basically, Facebook has an opt-in system: if you don't want people to know that you have a foot fetish, then don't include that as one of your interests.  If you're embarrassed that people may find out you like Insane Clown Posse, then don't include ICP among your favorite music.  Your Facebook account is not the same as your house - which is full of ads in newspapers, radio and television - because it wouldn't work if people used the same privacy settings we use in our homes.  I wouldn't allow 98% of my Facebook friends to simply wander through my living room and check out my CD collection and photo albums, but I have found it convenient to allow my acquaintances to browse through information I have carefully screened for them.  People who overshare on facebook should adjust their real life privacy settings or embrace their exhibitionism rather than blaming Facebook for presenting them with the opportunity to embarrass themselves.