1) Tagging a photo of someone generally does not imply their membership/support/interest in something (e.g NAMBLA).
2) It's very clear whether someone is truly in a photo, or it's a result of mischief. It's impossible to tell this with membership of a group.
3) Being tagged in a photo does not create a subscription.
I actually think there SHOULD be a way to prevent being photo tagged if you so wish, or at least prevent it becoming a hard-link to your profile/photos. My sister hates when people tag her in photos and will diligently remove the tags. I think that's a bit weird, but it should be her choice whether she can be tagged or not.
Indeed - if you care about privacy to any degree, and your facebook friends are a combination of family/friends/colleagues, then lists are essential.
I can't help but feel Facebook could negate a lot of these issues by giving every user these three groups by default and basing their default privacy settings around them.
It really bugs me how Facebook's MO seems to be to make every new feature opt-out, and often awkward to do so, in order to gain traction.
For example I can't even find a way to prevent people adding me to groups, other than outright de-friending them. That's a little nuclear for over-enthusiastic family members.
I suppose they'll add one later, after they are able to announce how millions of users are using the new groups feature.
2) It's very clear whether someone is truly in a photo, or it's a result of mischief. It's impossible to tell this with membership of a group.
3) Being tagged in a photo does not create a subscription.
I actually think there SHOULD be a way to prevent being photo tagged if you so wish, or at least prevent it becoming a hard-link to your profile/photos. My sister hates when people tag her in photos and will diligently remove the tags. I think that's a bit weird, but it should be her choice whether she can be tagged or not.