Thanks - oye. Isn't it implied that you actually want to see what your friends posts hence the reason you friended them. Not just what random posts some algorithm thinks you might want to see.

Some friends post too much. I've throttled feeds from people that mostly post political/religious rants, lot's of links to youTube, tortured animal pics, etc. I still like them, but the less of this kind of stuff I see the more likely I'll continue to like them.

Oh I have blocked people from my feed for those kinds of things - but don't you want to see it all first then decide to block rather than have some random things blocked and you have to manually add each person.

On the off chance you need yet another reason to be wary of Facebook...

What put me off of it was that I think FB lied to me about who was already using the auto-photo uploader in an attempt to get me on board. It said "these people share photos on fb", included my husband in the list, then gave the link to approve the uploader. GD does share photos manually but doesn't use the new thing. It's total bait and switch.

I thought everything on the Internet was true?

OMG! Kevy's Head is made of Chowder !!

Well now, it looks like the last "scary photo" news from FarceBook was just the opening salvo.

Take a gander as this.

As an update, people with better understanding of legalese than I possess have read the changes somewhat differently.

The good news: As written, the new language does NOT give them the right to sell your photos willy nilly and is actually slightly MORE restrictive in terms of what your photos can be usded for than before.

The bad news: The old language was actually ALREADY pretty permissive, allowing advertise a fair bit of leeway in using your photos (the way FB already allows, where advertisers can plop your photo into ads on the site).

The remains-to-be-seen news: Instagram has released a statement saying they are taking the reaction into consideration and working to clarify the language.