Topic: Embarrassing? Your Web Comments Could End Up in a Google Search

[Pandora]

Many websites engage their followers by allowing comments, which can be run through third parties like Facebook Comments, Disqus and Intense Debate, according to Digital Inspiration.

These comments previously may have been relatively unnoticed except for maybe by the commenting community and the comment moderator. Not anymore. Now they’re being picked up in Google searches.

As Digital Inspiration points out, this means that these sites could get a sort of “SEO boost” from their comments. SEO stands for search engine optimization, which is usually a set of terms that helps improve the visibility of a website in a search.

But as I’m sure you can image, and as Gawker points out, this also opens the door for embarrassing and even mean comments on the Internet to arise in someone’s Google search.

[charlesoakwood]

I don't understand.

[Pandora]

Seriously or leg-pulling?

[charlesoakwood]

Seriously.  I thought SEO was a good thing.  And having it posted on
Facebook or whatever, is the commenters isp posted or his pseudonym
or, well, actually I don't understand any of it.  I know everything associated
with the internet has more personal information than I think they should.

[IronDioPriest]

I use my Facebook account as myself - real name. I typically post political stuff, and rarely post personal stuff. But mt "friend" network is pretty limited, and I have my privacy settings set to the max - so that only friends can read what I write. Point being, I keep that activity separate from this activity. Anywhere I comment on the web, I am IronDioPriest, whose "real" name is Igor Drackenwolf - except Facebook - and never the two shall meet.

A few days ago, I wanted to post a quote from our friend Glock on my Facebook account, as something I "ran across" on the web. I copied the link to Glock's post and pasted it in the Facebook comment space. Usually, when you post a link to a published article, a "thumbnail" picture will automatically be inserted along with the link. You can see Facebook "searching" for the thumbnail, and it'll usually be whatever photo accompanies the article, or sometimes the website's logo or banner.

In this instance, Facebook searched for much longer than normal. It usually takes a couple seconds, but this "search" dragged on long enough that I began to wonder if because of the relative obscurity of our site, that perhaps no thumbnail was available. But then suddenly a thumbnail did pop up - and it was my avatar of the patriot dragging the donkey and the elephant by the scruff.

The thing is, it was not my post I was linking to, it was Glock's. The only explanation is that in seeking out the thumbnail - rather than using the site's banner, Facebook either A) determined IronDioPriest as the owner of the site and singled out IDP's avatar, or B) determined that IDP and the owner of the Facebook account under my real name were the same person, and selected the IDP avatar, or C) Both.

Needless to say, I decided NOT to link to the post, and instead, just copied the text from Glock's post. (Hope that's OK with you Glock)

I think the fact that all these computer magnates from Gates, to Jobs, to Google, to Yahoo, to Zuckerberg, etc. - are all Leftists, in the business of seeking favoritism from government - should give us all reason to be concerned. The potential for Facebook to be used for evil purposes is scary.

[BMG]

I think the fact that all these computer magnates from Gates, to Jobs, to Google, to Yahoo, to Zuckerberg, etc. - are all Leftists, in the business of seeking favoritism from government - should give us all reason to be concerned. The potential for Facebook to be used for evil purposes is scary.

That's one of the biggest reasons I am NOT on Facebook and never will be. I've found, especially of late, that nearly everyone is starting to 'require' you be on Facebook if you wish to interact in this form of media. I'm a member of my local Republican Executive Committee for example, and they have been twisting my arm to get on Facebook...which I refuse to do exactly because of privacy issues.

[Pandora]

I think the fact that all these computer magnates from Gates, to Jobs, to Google, to Yahoo, to Zuckerberg, etc. - are all Leftists, in the business of seeking favoritism from government - should give us all reason to be concerned. The potential for Facebook to be used for evil purposes is scary.

Homeland Security reviews social media guidelines

The wave of uprisings across North Africa and the Middle East that have overturned three governments in the past year have prompted the U.S. government to begin developing guidelines for culling intelligence from social media networks, a top Homeland Security official said Monday.

Department of Homeland Security Undersecretary Caryn Wagner said the use of such technology in uprisings that started in December in Tunisia shocked some officials into attention and prompted questions of whether the U.S. needs to do a better job of monitoring domestic social networking activity.

"We're still trying to figure out how you use things like Twitter as a source," she said. "How do you establish trends and how do you then capture that in an intelligence product?"

Wagner said the department is establishing guidelines on gleaning information from sites such as Twitter and Facebook for law enforcement purposes. Wagner says those protocols are being developed under strict laws meant to prevent spying on U.S. citizens and protect privacy, including rules dictating the length of time the information can be stored and differences between domestic and international surveillance.

Wagner said the Homeland Security department, established after the 9/11 attacks, is not actively monitoring any social networks. But when the department receives information about a potential threat, contractors are then asked to look for certain references within "open source" information, which is available to anyone on the Internet.

Right.  "The Homeland Security department" isn't?  Parsing now .... who is?  Because I'm not buying for a second they're not already gov-botting everywhere.

[Glock32]

The thing is, it was not my post I was linking to, it was Glock's. The only explanation is that in seeking out the thumbnail - rather than using the site's banner, Facebook either A) determined IronDioPriest as the owner of the site and singled out IDP's avatar, or B) determined that IDP and the owner of the Facebook account under my real name were the same person, and selected the IDP avatar, or C) Both.

Needless to say, I decided NOT to link to the post, and instead, just copied the text from Glock's post. (Hope that's OK with you Glock)

Naturally, you may use any of my words of wisdom...lol.

I suspect (A) is the most likely explanation of your avatar ending up associated with the link.  Because these PHP-based forums are so common, it's possible that Facebook "knows" how to find the owner of a forum and choose their avatar as a representative thumbnail for the forum.

But yes, I agree with your suspicion of social networks and their relationship with State Almighty. I've never used Facebook and have no intention of ever doing so. Creating a sanitized identity specifically for use on social sites, with no link to your actual identity, is probably the best way to use those sites.

[Pandora]

I think the fact that all these computer magnates from Gates, to Jobs, to Google, to Yahoo, to Zuckerberg, etc. - are all Leftists, in the business of seeking favoritism from government - should give us all reason to be concerned. The potential for Facebook to be used for evil purposes is scary.

That's one of the biggest reasons I am NOT on Facebook and never will be. I've found, especially of late, that nearly everyone is starting to 'require' you be on Facebook if you wish to interact in this form of media. I'm a member of my local Republican Executive Committee for example, and they have been twisting my arm to get on Facebook...which I refuse to do exactly because of privacy issues.

Exactly why I haven't 'booked myself either -- privacy issues.  Although I do get a little too blabby about the personal stuff here sometimes.

Ironic how the technology starts out as a boon of convenience and people proceed to turn it into a necessity.  "What!  You don't have e-mail!"  "What!  You don't have a cellphone!"

[Alphabet Soup]

Good thing to keep in mind.

I have several aliases that I employ on different sites and I try to keep them separate (for obvious reasons). The one thing that I've noticed is that every once in awhile I will try to register at a site using one of those aliases only to find that it is already in use by someone.

So perhaps goggle will find you, and perhaps someone will find someone who looks like you...

[Janny]

Facebook is as "private" as you want to make it. Posting here on a site that's completely open to public view is "riskier" than Facebook.

BUT.......you don't even have to post anything on the Internet for information about you to show up in google searches. It's a big, bad information machine. Public records. Newspapers, old and new. Phone numbers. Addresses. Background searches. Etc. etc.

[Libertas]

True Janny, but I am still refusing to do the Facebook and other social media things, no use in making your digital footprint any larger than it has to be!

ETA - Plus, using your real name makes it easier for anyone keep tabs on you, especially Big Sis, and at least here we can freely exercise free speech in relative comfort.

[IronDioPriest]

One thing people don't know without being told (or digging deep into their Facebook security) is that you can change your security from "http" to "https", which is the same level of security you have with a yahoo/gmail/hotmail account, your bank, paypal, etc. The difference is that from there, you can allow your "friends" to see your account. Otherwise, casual browsers or people looking for you can't see it.