Friending wasn't used as a verb until about five years ago, when social networks such as Friendster, MySpace and Facebook burst onto the scene.

Suddenly, our friends were something even better - an audience. If blogging felt like shouting into the void, posting updates on a social network felt more like an intimate conversation among friends at a pub.

Inevitably, as our list of friends grew to encompass acquaintances, friends of friends and the girl who sat behind us in seventh-grade homeroom, online friendships became devalued.

Suddenly, we knew as much about the lives of our distant acquaintances as we did about the lives of our intimates – what they'd had for dinner, how they felt about Tiger Woods and so on.

Enter Twitter with a solution: no friends, just followers. These one-way relationships were easier to manage – no more annoying decisions about whether to give your ex-boyfriend access to your photos, no more fussing over who could see your employment and contact information.

Twitter's updates were also easily searchable on the Web, forcing users to be somewhat thoughtful about their posts. The intimate conversation became a talent show, a challenge to prove your intellectual prowess in 140 characters or less.

This fall, Twitter turned its popularity into dollars, inking lucrative deals to allow its users tweets to be broadcast via search algorithms on Google and Bing.

Soon, Facebook followed suit with deals to distribute certain real-time data to Google and Bing. （Recall that despite being the fifth most popular Web site in the world, Facebook is barely profitable.） Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt says no money changed hands in the deals but says there was "probably an exchange of value."

Just one catch: Facebook had just "exchanged" to Google and Microsoft something that didn't exist.

The vast majority of Facebook users restrict updates to their friends, and do not expect those updates to appear in public search results. （In fact, many people restrict their Facebook profile from appearing at all in search results）.

So Facebook had little content to provide to Google's and Bing's real-time search results. When Google's real-time search launched earlier this month, its results were primarily filled with Twitter updates.

Coincidentally, Facebook presented its 350 million members with a new default privacy setting last week. For most people, the new suggested settings would open their Facebook updates and information to the entire world. Mr. Schnitt says the new privacy suggestions are an acknowledgement of "the way we think the world is going."

Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg led by example, opening up his previously closed profile, including goofy photos of himself curled up with a teddy bear.

Facebook also made public formerly private info such as profile pictures, gender, current city and the friends list. （Mr. Schnitt suggests that users are free to lie about their hometown or take down their profile picture to protect their privacy; in response to users complaints, the friends list can now be restricted to be viewed only by friends）.

Of course, many people will reject the default settings on Facebook and keep on chatting with only their Facebook friends. （Mr. Schnitt said more than 50% of its users had rejected the defaults at last tally）.

But those who want a private experience on Facebook will have to work harder at it: if you inadvertently post a comment on a friends profile page that has been opened to the public, your comment will be public too.

Just as Facebook turned friends a commodity, it has likewise gathered our personal data – our updates, our baby photos, our endless chirping birthday notes- and readied it to be bundled and sold.

So I give up. Rather than fighting to keep my Facebook profile private, I plan to open it up to the public – removing the fiction of intimacy and friendship.

But I will also remove the vestiges of my private life from Facebook and make sure I never post anything that I wouldn't want my parents, employer, next-door neighbor or future employer to see. You'd be smart to do the same.

We'll need to treat this increasingly public version of Facebook with the same hard-headedness that we treat Twitter: as a place to broadcast, but not a place for vulnerability. A place to carefully calibrate, sanitize and bowdlerize our words for every possible audience, now and forever. Not a place for intimacy with friends.

自五年前friendster,myspace和facebook等社交网站出现后，朋友一词开始成为一个动词

突然间，朋友成了观众。如果说写博客让人觉得象是对着空虚呐喊，那在社交网站中发言则更象在酒吧里和密友聊天。

随着我们的朋友圈子扩展到了熟人、朋友的朋友乃至于7年级指导教室里坐在我们旁边的女生，网络友谊不可避免开始贬值。

突然间，我们对远方朋友的生活就象对身边密友一样熟悉---我们知道他们晚饭吃了些什么，对于老虎伍兹有何看法等等。

在Twitter上找到了解决办法：没有朋友，只有跟随者。这种单向式的关系更容易打理----不再为是否让前男友看你的照片而烦恼，也不再为谁会看到你的求职和交往信息而头痛。

Twitte上的发言也更容易在网上搜到，这使用户要对自己的言论多加考虑，亲密对话成了才艺展示，成为一种你用140个或更少的词汇来证明自己智力的挑战。

今年秋天，Twitter把它的人气变成了美元，它与Google 和 Bing签订了利润丰厚的协议让用户的微博在这两个搜索引擎上得到传播。

很快，Facebook也步其后尘，将一些实时数据传送到Google 和 Bing上。（Facebook尽管是世界上第五大最受欢迎网站，却难有盈利。）其发言人人巴里斯奇尼特说这场交易中没有金钱交易但是"可能有价值交换。"

需要明白的是：Facebook和Google 及微软交换的是一些根本不存在的东西。

Facebook的大多数用户仅允许朋友看到发言，他们不想出现在公开的搜索结果中。（事实上，许多人都不会让自己在Facebook上的资料出现在搜索结果中。）

这样一来Facebook出现在Google和Bing实时搜索结果中的内容就很少了。当谷歌本月初进行实时搜索时，其结果几乎都是Twitter上的发言。

巧的是，Facebook上周向它的3亿5千万用户提供了新的默认私密设置。对于大多数人而言，这项新设置将向全世界公开他们在Facebook上的发言和讯息。斯奇尼特先生说这项新隐私设置确认了"我们认为世界运转的方式。"

Facebook执行总裁马克。齐克博格也以身作则，公开他以前的私密信息，包括一张他躺在一只泰迪熊身上的搞笑照片。

Facebook还公开了之前的一些私密信息例如形象照片、性别、现处城市以及朋友名单。（斯奇尼特先生说用户可以杜撰自己的家乡或撤下形象照片来保护隐私，在用户的抱怨下，朋友名单现在也可设置为仅限好友可见。）

当然，许多人会拒绝Facebook的默认设置并继续只和Facebook上的朋友们聊天。（斯奇尼特先生说据最新统计，超过50%的用户拒绝了默认设置。）

但想在Facebook上进行私人交往的用户必须更加注意了：如果你不小心在朋友的页面上发表了评论，而朋友的页面又是对公众开放的，那你的评论也会随之公开。

正如Facebook把朋友变成了商品，它同样还收集了我们的个人数据---我们的发言、我们的婴儿照片、一大堆杂七杂八的生日祝福---并准备将其打包出售。

所以我放弃了。我没去扞卫我的Facebook资料的隐私，而是打算让它公开---前提是我把隐私和友谊的部分给删掉了。

而且我还会删掉Facebook上我的私人生活内容，不留痕迹，确定没有留下任何不想让父母、老板、隔壁邻居或未来雇主看到的内容，你最好也这么做。

对于越来越公开的Facebook,我们需要象对Twitter那样头脑冷静：将其作为一个传播信息而非暴露弱点的场所；一个现在和以后，对每一位可能的观众都字斟句酌的场所，而不是一个和朋友亲密交往的场所。