People saying it's no big deal either never used Facebook to grab e-mails for parties/weddings/celebrations.

All my friends have emails, and most of them have Facebook, but not all of them check Facebook that often or only have Facebook to not become a social outcast. You either need to contact them by phone or by email if you need something from them in some immediate time frame. Add to that the fact that there are more emails listed on the site than phone numbers so your primary option is email them.

So now those people who haven't bothered checking Facebook cannot be contacted because that email address just routes back to Facebook. It negates the whole point of having your email listed, which is for your friends to contact you in some non-Facebook way.

And Facebook just has a fetish with mucking with your personal settings. It's the only company that routinely does this kind of thing without bothering to say anything about it.

There is another issue - if you download FB contact details to your mobile address book (either directly or via a separate app), you will wipe out all the 'real' email addresses of your friends!! And as you sync your phone to your desktop/cloud/gmail etc, you potentially wipe out any record of your friend's real email addresses.

They're trying to control the ecosystem and tighten the reigns. However you can't successfully control any ecosystem, you can only manage them. Continuing to abuse users is the absolute opposite thing to do. Users will start flooding away from Facebook once other competitive systems develop in its place.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Facebook does this routinely, and yet people go back.

Would you be surprised if news broke that Facebook has been selling your private messages to third parties? Not really. What if Google did that? That would cause uproar, so G+ is competitive in terms of user control.

Is there a tradeoff between user control and social connections that users face when using Facebook? Were this the case, G+ would have much higher market share and users would have already started flooding away, with the network effect in play.

But that's not the case. Control is relatively negligible to the majority of Facebook users. Competitors won't succeed until values change.

Personally, I value control. I'd be done with Facebook were it not for its White Pages functionality - with a name, you can find someone and contact them. That's not the case for the majority though, so having other competitive systems won't do much good.

What competitive systems ?

People keep talking like some magical Facebook competitor is just around the corner, ready to take on 400+ million fleeing users and assume its position at the top.

It simply isn't going to happen. The ghost town that is Google Plus is showing exactly what most competitors end up looking like.

Using "Google Plus" and "ghost town" in the same sentence is a red flag for not knowing what you're talking about. I get way more engagement on Google+ than I do on Facebook, and I've had a Facebook account for a long time.

Perhaps his Google+ experience is different then yours? I'm inclined to agree -- most people who I know have Google+ accounts, have added me to their circles (and vice-versa) but chose to keep all of their interaction on Facebook.

The groups of people you communicate with are different. Just like during the 90s, some groups used AIM, some MSN, some ICQ...

maybe its more like suburbia than a ghost town.

Shameless plug, I use www.thebuckyball.com to handle all email contacts and social friends, but that's because I wrote the backend, (in erlang) for those interested.

You're right, I havent. I just message them through facebook instead.

This is a really stupid move. If someone is viewing my profile and looking for an email address, they're not looking for this one. If that was the case they could just message me through the website.

This even affected profiles that listed 2 or more email addresses.

>This is a really stupid move. If someone is viewing my profile and looking for an email address, they're not looking for this one. If that was the case they could just message me through the website.

This seems painfully obvious to me. I am willing to assume that this change in visibility of email addresses was inadvertent or just a simple misthought choice, but it seems far more arrogant of Facebook to think that I'm going to use them as an email client. Ever. Besides the privacy implications, Facebooks messages feature and email, basically be definition and by 5+ years of usage, indicates that they're not the same thing.

This is the worst possible way I've seen someone use email, and I'm someone who will often use Facebook messages as it's a more reliable way of getting in touch with someone than email.

I can confirm that my profile was modified to hide my real email address without permission. This appears to be more than a hype piece.

I confirm this as well.

Same thing happened to me - but I got a notification. Then changed it right back again.

They did this a couple of days ago; I think I noticed it on Saturday...

I'm willing to bet most news agencies/blogs sat on it until today to reach a more people.

Happened to me and my gf as well.. I can't make up my mind if this was meant for better privacy (by hiding our real email address).

I think it helps more people than it hurts though.

In what way?

By protecting their "private" data, that is, hiding their email address. For public profiles that is.

I'm not 100% certain on this but I think you could hide your email on your profile already.

I just checked my profile and I saw that my facebook e-mail address was shared with 'only me', likely due to other privacy choices I made and that it stopped sharing my real e-mail address. I think this might have had the effect where people wouldn't see any e-mail address shared. (Although one can easily derive the @facebook.com e-mail address anyway.)

Also, this change just generally makes it harder to make use of other social sites. Need the person's e-mail address to add them on LinkedIn? Need to scrape e-mail addresses of your friends to invite them to another service (as was talked about a lot a few years ago)? Can't do either in many cases if your friends just show their @facebook addresses.

Edit: Well, for LinkedIn that would only work if the person associated their facebook.com address with LinkedIn, which I don't think people do. For the latter, it could still work but the person would strangely hear about the other service via Facebook (which I suppose Facebook could 'lose' those messages if it became a problem) and it could be hard to look people up by their more common e-mail addresses.

Some context, from two days ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4151433

It's strange how much FB worships at the alter of engagement. Time and time again they intentionally poke their own users in the eye like this.

It's called abuse..

Here is how to resolve the issue: http://www.wikihow.com/Permanently-Delete-a-Facebook-Account

Another one of Facebook's privacy "escapades". Sigh! I thought by now they would have got these things right but it looks like "privacy" is always going to be "bête noire" of Facebook.

Facebook and privacy in one sentence. Seriously ;)?

I sent a test email to my new @facebook.com email address from both my regular email account and another test email account I own. Neither ended up in either my Facebook messages list or being redirected to my real email. I have no idea where the messages went. Nice one!

At least I've found out about it now and have been able to remove the address from my profile.

This is even lamer than general because FB Messages is an awesome product on its own (a reliable way to message or IM people with little risk of spamfiltering), and absolutely didn't need a heavy-handed push like this to be successful. Now, FB Messages is tainted with "product people didn't like, so we'll force them to use it".

I've been trying to find out how much of this change has to do with iOS 6's Facebook integration. I remember having to re-do my contacts two weeks ago and this was a HUGE issue because, as Swang 5 said, i had to basically call or SMS everyone to get their e-mails into my contact lists.

Really big inconvenience.

It sounds more like they're providing an email to every user with the options set to public by default. While that could be construed as bad, it shouldn't override another email if that other email is marked as public.

It is over-riding and replacing the normal email addresses.

It didn't replace, in my experience. I didn't know this was to be A Thing, and last week I was going through my settings and noticed the facebook.com address. "Huh, I guess they're adding email addresses to the existing URLs everybody has (or was able to sign up for those years ago)." My other (login) email address was still there, but as an alternate or whatever.

It replaced both of my public email addresses.

I bet it did if you click "Edit." I bet that your other email addresses are there and are marked as "Hide on Timeline."

Maybe something changed in the last, oh, 5 days?

Look closer. Your previously public non-facebook address is now set as hidden. People attempting to email you will be forced through Facebook. "Hide from Timeline" option will be chosen.

I believe this is the non-dramatized version of events.

The drama comes in Facebook automatically hiding your original email address, regardless of your original settings. There's nothing about that action that can be construed as anything other than forcing you into Facebook's messaging system.

I can't imagine why they decided email addresses now needed two layers of privacy controls. First layer = who can see this, second layer = is it visible on timeline. If I didn't want it visible on the timeline, why wouldn't I just select "Only me" on the first option...? Am I trying to keep my email private from myself?

They also only made the change for email addresses -- not IM usernames, etc. If the two layers were to help with privacy somehow, why not apply it to everything?

Wait a minute.. did they do this to just hide emails from spammers?? or did they actually replace your email address with your official facebook email address?

It's a real, working email address that sends emails to your facebook "messages".

Do Facebook EU have to conform to EU email handling law now they're an email service provider? Are they conforming to those laws?

I imagine they have to conform to those laws for their email service. And, given that they're a big company with plenty of lawyers, I have no doubt they are. However, this probably changes nothing about the core product.

> And, given that they're a big company with plenty of lawyers, I have no doubt they are

Recent events in the UK make me have less confidence in the law abiding nature of large lawyered corporations. This is especially true with respect to privacy which is complex, often not in the corporation's interest, and poorly regulated.

I'll agree I sound a bit like a paranoid privacy nut here, and that there's nothing to suggest Facebook are doing anything illegal.

Either they put everything back, or some accounts haven't gotten hit yet. My "primary" email is still listed as my personal email address. I can change it to be the @facebook.com one, but that's just listed as my "Facebook email".

This is a big problem. But the only way it will be known as a big problem is if G+ puts some money behind a PR effort. I think this is a great opportunity for G+ to increase it's user base.

How about not using facebook? I just don't see the value in it. The most people post any bullshit on facebook like "I'm in the train now. It's warm here." I think it's a waste of lifetime to read such things. There are a lot of other things to do and new things to explore, which are more fun and don't monitor your activities all the day.

Is it time yet for a campaign of intentional misinformation across Facebook?

Is there anything that is more a threat to Facebook than misinformation? I am sure they track IP and where you are hitting the local switches and routers, on top of the location you provide, but is it time to provide false location and demographic info to spread a marketing virus. What would make advertisers shy off more than discovering that the demographic info is trash and even more useless than the trash Facebook now hocks.

Am I the only one who's actually happy about not having my actual personal email exposed (even accidentally) on Facebook?

You always had that option by setting it to hidden. The issue is that if you wanted to expose your email to, say, your friends so that they could contact you in some non-Facebook way if they needed to, now you have to revert the changes that Facebook did.

Wait what? They exposed their own @facebook email address, not your email outside of the service... right?

It's time to dump Facebook and use Zurker (still in beta, you'd need an invite). Here's the invitation link:

http://www.zurker.in/i-29371-ohhlpiiglq

Seems Zuck has lost it, after all.