We may very well look back on yesterday’s Facebook privacy climb-down as a turning point in the very nature and function of social networks. Bowing to public pressure, the social networking heavyweight will introduce in the coming days new privacy guidelines that could very well lead to a whole lot less sharing of our private photos, videos, status updates and favorite links. And yet for such a landmark policy change, nobody seems to be happy with the changes.

Here’s what went down yesterday at Facebook HQ in Palo Alto: In summary, Facebook will introduce in the coming days and weeks a whole new set of rules regarding our privacy controls, including the introduction of a simplified “master control” allowing its 400 million-plus users to simply pick and choose precisely with whom they want to see their photos, witty remarks and web links. And yet, the changes still don’t go far enough.

Consider these responses to the changes:

• A Wall Street Journal poll (306 respondents as of now) finds that 72.9% feel the new changes do not go far enough.
• A whopping 93% of the 605 people polled by British online security specialists Sophos said they would prefer Facebook privacy settings be “opt-in.”
• Roughly 70% of the 5,186 readers polled by Mashable said they have or plan to commit an act of Facebook suicide. Why? The most often cited reason for leaving is that they no longer trust Facebook with their personal data.
• Facebook members have created over 1,000 groups in the past two years demanding tighter privacy controls.
• Why all the fuss? As the New York Times explained in a neat, but creepy graph: “To manage your privacy on Facebook, you will need to navigate through 50 settings with more than 170 options.” And at the end you’re still not quite certain who will see your pics, videos and status updates.

Even in announcing the changes, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg reiterates his belief that people fundamentally have a desire to share. He speaks of the s-word as a great liberating force. “When you share more, the world becomes more open and connected,” he writes.

Who could disagree with such a notion? Well, for starters, regulators. There is a legal showdown before the F.T.C. and the European Commission, waving the EU-wide Privacy Directive, is demanding better protections for European users.

In clinging to this notion of sharing = a better more profitable world, Zuckerberg at the moment is exposed as a radical, a dangerous one at that. Under the current (expiring) regime, he is on a collision course with regulators in the U.S. and abroad.

The irony is that Zuckerberg has probably done more good for advancing the personal privacy debate than any other figure in the business world. Because of Facebook even teenagers now understand and value the occasional anonymity of being just a teenager. This generation also understands the value of personal expression and random inter-connectedness. There is a balance of course, but it’s not reflected in our current laws. And so the feeling of zero personal control as exemplified by the Old (or soon-to-be “Old”) Facebook will now shift to a reactionary sharing-is-dangerous mentality. We’ll swing back and forth until the laws catch up with societal norms. But in the meantime, there will be a lot less sharing.

I hope this back-and-forth doesn’t impact Zuckerberg’s dream of an “open and connected world.” That sounds like a place I’d like to live.