general
The Latest on Facebook Privacy
A lot has tumbled out of the woodwork about Facebook privacy over the last week, so here’s a quick review:
- via PCWorld: Facebook’s New Features Secretly Add Apps To Your Profile.
If you visit certain sites while logged in to Facebook, an app for those sites will be quietly added to your Facebook profile. You don’t have to have a Facebook window open, you don’t need to be signed in to these sites for the apps to appear, there’s no notification, and there doesn’t appear to be an option to opt-out anywhere in Facebook’s byzantine privacy settings.
- via AllFacebook: Why Is Facebook Dead Set On Pushing Limits of Privacy?
Does this mean that this is the way the world is going? Or does it simply mean this is the way that internet startups have chosen to “innovate”? I’d argue that it’s the latter and ultimately, Facebook will win when users have complete control of all their information.
While sharing information has become an integral component of our daily communication, who we share that information with differs from person to person. With close to 450 million users, Facebook has plenty of opportunities to make money while simultaneously releasing new innovative technologies. None of this need to violate users’ privacy.
Despite this, Facebook continues to release products that violate the users’ trust and ultimately, that’s going to be more damaging to the company than anything else.
Nick is totally correct about this, and I think it’s telling that AllFacebook – which for a long time has seemed to be a simple fan front for Facebook – is calling them out pretty hard here.
- via AllFacebook: Chris Kelly Does Not Like “Instant Personalization”
Facebook’s former Chief Privacy Officer, Chris Kelly, made a public statement against Facebook’s new “Instant Personalization” service, days after the program came under attack from a number of Senators. In a public statement, Chris Kelly distanced himself from Facebook saying, “Facebook’s recent changes to its privacy policy and practices with regard to data sharing occurred after I left the company.”
Even Chris Kelly – who was in charge of privacy during Beacon – thinks this goes too far.
- via DeObfuscate: Facebook’s Anti-Privacy Monopoly
- Rocket.ly and PrimeVector on why they (and you) should cancel your Facebook account.
- PeteSearch on how Facebook threatened to sue him for revealing some of their data practices.
The biggest response I get from people when I point out these arguments is that “you can just delete your account”. But really, no, I can’t. Nor do I want to. I like using Facebook too much, and not having an account would feel like being a hermit. Facebook use is becoming a somewhat integral part of our society. But that doesn’t mean I can’t argue and fight against what I see as harmful anticompetitive conduct that destroys the bargaining relationship between Facebook users and Facebook, Inc.
Back
Jonas and I have resurrected FacebookWatch from a long hiatus in light of the Open Graph excesses.
Updates to come.
Is The New Policy Just A PR Stunt?
FacebookWatch was heartened by the vote over new privacy policies for Facebook. We agree with Professor Jonathan Zittrain of Harvard Law, who wrote on his blog that:
This encourages Facebook users not to simply view themselves as users but as … citizens. Citizens of Facebook. The consumer/vendor relationship – governed by contract and fair trade law – is different from that of citizen/government. Citizens identify with something larger than themselves – if one’s country is attacked, it can feel like a personal attack in a way that a fellow bank customer’s account theft does not feel like a personal invasion. (”Today we are all Bank of Americans” doesn’t leap to the lips.) And in non-authoritarian systems, citizens have a voice in the affairs of state distinct from the metaphorical vote a consumer makes with his or her feet – or that a shareholder makes in a quaint proxy proceeding.
We agree wholeheartedly. The entire point of FacebookWatch is to serve as the Voice of the Users, and to cultivate among the Facebook community a sense of civic obligation and entitlement.
At the same time, the actual outcome of the Facebook vote is decidedly troubling. Despite widespread advertisement on the site and a mainstream media barrage, only 600,000 users voted on the new policies. Despite the fact that this was 100 times smaller than the 60 million Facebook had set as a quorum (as 30% of the 200 million active users), Facebook announced that they would implement the policies. Apparently, the number or ratio of votes was sufficient for Facebook to recognize that a change should be made.
However, an unadvertised third party application has been polling users on the new site design. Over 1.2 million people have voted against the new design. This is twice as large as the number of people who voted for the new policies, but Facebook has shown no interest whatsoever in reevaluating any aspect of the new design.
We applaud any earnest attempt by Facebook to move from a commercial model to a community model. However, the discrepency in their responses to vortes over the new policies and the new design suggest that their apparantely adventurous foray into civics was nothing more than a publicity stunt.
Democratizing Facebook
The New York Times published an article today called “Facebook at 5: Is it Growing Up Too Fast?” Like many recent articles about Facebook, it explored the meteoric rise of the site, its exponential expansion into the adult community beyond its foundational college audience, and the current controversial changes to policy and layout.
But the article had a key quote that cuts to the heart of FacebookWatch’s purpose.
“It’s not a democracy,” Mr. Cox says of his company’s relationship with users. “We are here to build an Internet medium for communicating and we think we have enough perspective to do that and be caretakers of that vision.”
No one thinks that Facebook is a government, and no one is asking that Facebook require a quorum before it can go ahead with any corporate policy. However, Mr. Cox is fundamentally mistaken both about the needs of users and what Facebook’s response should be.
danah boyd, in her insightful dissertation, outlined how Friendster was repurposed by its users who created “Fakesters” to advertise their bands and businesses. She identifies Friendster’s habitual quashing of the Fakesters as one of the primary reasons that people were driven from the site. The users had an idea of the social utility they wanted Friendster to serve, and Friendster did not allow them to meet their goals. Similarly, users have a similar idea of what they’d like Facebook to do. People use Facebook for very specific social purposes, and this new design has made it more difficult for people to use Facebook.
That is the root of the anger – not that Facebook has done something without consulting its users, but that Facebook has done something that gets in the way of what its users want to do, and now ignores their demands because they can.
But Cox is right. Facebook is not only not a democracy – it cannot be, as long as users do not have a way to effectively voice their complaints. Facebook cannot respond to the demands of the market if the participants in that market cannot make themselves heard.
Join the conversation at FacebookWatch. What should we, the users of Facebook, do to make ourselves heard – and perhaps more importantly, to make Facebook listen to us?
CBS Reports on Users Reaction to the New Layout
CBS reports on the Facebook application poll asking users what they think of the new layout: 94% give the changes a thumbs-down: