Possible side effects of this setting include: Getting fired for your political beliefs, inability to get a loan due to a status update that indicated financial irresponsibility, and a speedy end to any political campaign you attempt to start.
This seems like a pretty big double standard. Twitter is public by default, but no one is setting the same bar for informed consent. The issue isn't the change from private to public; I think most people who accept that default understand that their posts are no longer private by default. I don't see why explaining more is necessary.
This privacy change happened in December, by the way. If it weren't for Instant Personalization, this firestorm never would've happened.
perhaps you and I should get clear on the word necessary. Here's a thought experiment: Imagine we poll some statistically significant number of users and ask them questions about their own settings like "Can your mother see this? Do you think you could be denied a job if you were to post this?" and so forth.
One possibility is that the vast majority of the people would get the answers right. They understand the implications and are happy with their choices. The other possibility is that some large number of respondents don't get the answers right, indicating that they don't understand the implications.
The standard I feel is appropriate for all companies trafficking in information with such serious potential outcomes is that their customers understand the implications of their choices.
How much explaining is necessary? I say enough to achieve understanding. It's flat-out unethical to conduct a business where a substantial proportion of your 'customers' do not understand the implications of doing business with you.
Of course, the plural of anecdote is not "data." Maybe the OP has it wrong and most Facebook users understand what choices they are making and simply don't value their privacy as much as outraged nerds on a forum.
I'm not saying it's wrong for Facebook to share people's data with "everyone," only pointing out that IMO it would be unethical to do so if a significant proportion of their users did not give their informed consent.
Informed consent is a much higher standard than simple "consent."
The argument here is that while Facebook may technically be telling you everything you need to know, they aren't actually achieving informed consent. If you mistakenly think "everyone" means everyone who uses Facebook personally, you haven't given them informed consent to share your information with a credit bureau.