Facebook Users Do Not Really Want What They Are Screaming For

Posted by schneidermike on Thursday, May 20, 2010 · View Comments 

I caught this article on Mark Zuckerberg’s privacy settings via Julia Roy. And while Zuckerberg may be both cavalier and pompous, so is the community. Look at their sense of entitlement. Please let this serve as a friendly reminder: Facebook is free.

Facebook is Free

The community is complaining about free software, free software that is doing what it says it is going to do. Facebook tells you that they can use your persona to target you and that developers can use it to build applications to serve you. That’s the point. That is how they make money. And let me remind you again, you have not paid a dime for Facebook. The terms of use clearly outline the default privacy. Yes, they change them a lot without asking -WHICH IS TOTALLY SLIMY- but they are pretty good about telling you they changed them. It really is your responsibility to read what you’ve accepted and you do not until someone who has posts something on your wall telling you what they have read. And If you think what they are doing is sleazy, then leave, but first you may want to consider what you would be leaving for.

Do People Want a Facebook Alternative?

Maybe. People say they want more control of their data, but I am not convinced that even Diaspora, the open source, privacy aware, alleged Facebook killer is what people are asking for. This is just based on their video, but it sounds like it is just another version of Facebook, except more righteous and secure.

Ilya from Diaspora says: “No longer will you be at the whims of these large corporate networks who want to tell you that sharing and privacy are mutually exclusive because it will be your node.” Someone has to pay for that. What’s the catch? There’s only $175,121 in kickstarter donations to date thus far. When it collapses under the weight of a lack of revenue model, people will be running back to their free Facebook accounts.

Here is what I think the screaming community means to ask for:

A write once, use anywhere (portable) “digital locker” that carries standard profile information, your content, your locations, your connections and your fully customizable security policy.

digital_locker

There are a host of problems that need to be solved. First major problem is that a W3C-like standard needs to be implemented for the digital locker class and the associated API. Developers need to have something to develop against and a standard convention will make it easy for new developers to understand the possibilities while existing applications bring themselves up to speed.

Money and attention seem to have opened the eyes of Diaspora even wider because they have, according to their blog, decided to implement some new standards like OStatus. But it’s probably just scratching the surface of what they really need to do.

The biggest problem here is that the complainers will need to manage their own security models. There will be default models that can be chosen to pass to any application that you sign up for, but I would bet most people won’t take the time to create and manage security on an application by application basis. It’s not easy.

Also, somebody has to pay for the space you are using. Will it be you?

  • Are you willing to leave Facebook for a pay option?
  • What has Facebook done to violate the Terms of Use?
  • Are you willing to spend the time managing security policies between apps and other people’s digital lockers in your own digital locker?

Filed under Social Media, Technology · Tagged with

  • I valued this post much Mike thanks for your insights.
    Totally guilty though of bein' a sheep initially with facebook. I joined it 2.5 years ago when it was more out of ooooh ahhh.
    You get over the honeymoon of using all these tools. You own your voice and realize you're 100% you whether on facebook or in person ...and you ask yourself what's the value to me....
    Valuing much how much it matters to think through our 'why's' bout why we're using any tool.
    Haven't as yet closed my facebook...may. I want real connections, not see and be seen and who's who and who's doing what.
    Would I leave Facebook for a pay option?
    Yes if the pay option was a digital locker? Absolutely.

  • Sir, sorry for the late response but this post is awesome. Was discussing the possibility of plugging in and unplugging ones "data vault" from social networks with some buddies last night.

    Also, I've been conducting ethnography on a very small sample of Facebook users (just cause it's fun) and I've noticed over the past year that while the privacy settings of these accounts has gotten tighter, users are sharing more on the things they're really passionate about. This is different from what I noticed about a year and a half ago where it was harder to pin down someone's cultural influences and passions based on what they were sharing on the site. So I feel like facebook users are continuing to share like bees but on a narrower list of topics (ones that they really care about)...which is actually a better thing for marketers. Of course, again my research is a "home lab" and done on a very small sample of users.

    What do you think?
  • Sir! So formal.

    The big question is around the openness of the standard and the
    flexibility of the vault. You want a balance of flexibility and
    features.

    Your study is fascinating. It would be cool to conduct it on a
    repesentative sample.
  • I really like the idea of making content independent of application by putting it in a digital locker which is fully controlled by the user. However, as you precisely pointed out, there are a few problems associated wit it.
    Any social network has to be FREE. If it's not, users will not adopt it. Thus, the revenue models will be based around advertisements and information sharing. And if the model does not permit them to do so, they will eventually collapse.
    The problems associated with users expected to manage their privacy settings for individual applications / social networks and developing W3C like standards for social networks are some critical issues as well.
  • I had the same concerns about Diaspora. They speak a lot in their videos of "installing/hosting your own nodes." From the sounds of it, I believe that model would fail faster than you can say "barrier to entry" thanks to being too technical for the average user.

    Also, is it just me, or do the kids seem even more jaded and immature than a 2004 Mark Zuckerburg? Don't get me wrong, I'm a young guy, too, but good ideas are a dime a dozen. I have trouble believing that these boys can execute.

    Only time will tell. In the meantime, I think users on existing networks need to realize that they are making a choice to use the platforms with which they've been provided, and that they are in full control over the data they choose to provide to those services. "Public" is quickly becoming the norm.
  • I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. The problem isn't that Facebook shares your data with advertisers, targeted marketing, et al. The problem is that FB decided to turn on those features instead of leaving them off and prompting the users if they want to turn them on or not.

    I find it curious that FB makes the privacy stuff on by default, but their new security feature (for detecting logins by unauthorized machines) is off by default. That, in a nutshell, tells you where their focus lies.
  • Thanks for taking the time to comment Sal. I appreciate it and for sparking some debate.

    I disagree with you that the default open setting is a problem. The mission of Facebook is to share everything with everyone. No one on the system is paying for the services that they provide. They are allowed to do whatever they want with the platform as long as it is not illegal and they state it in their ToS. Terms of service are always subject to change. You read them, decide if you like them and then decide if you want to continue to use the free software.

    Your second point is extraordinarily curious. I was unaware of that.
  • Very true. I just think that their tactics are underhanded. You're absolutely correct that you get what you pay for :-) If people don't like what FB is doing, they should make sure that the door doesn't hit them in the ass on the way out.

    If FB would stop with the privacy changes "during the night", I don't think there'd be so much public outcry.
  • Mike- thanks for taking the time to eloquently summarize all the thoughts that have been running through my head since the beginning of this whole privacy panic. In this age of FREE, users want more and more and more yet are unwilling to give back anything in return. Simply put- we're spoiled by this technology.

    There are a couple different elements of Facebook I like: the fact it's easy enough to use that we've seen generational gaps bridged and parents/grandparents becoming active users, and the fact they've been able to become the clear social networking leader. Almost all of the people I keep in touch with are on there. Yes a little competition from other networks can help keep Facebook honest and perhaps drive some new feature creation, but the most valuable aspect of Facebook to me is the people. Changing social networks is not like changing banks where you get to take all your money and put it someplace else. Yes you can leave, but you don't get to take your friends with you. Do we really despise and distrust Facebook to the point we want to see our friends jumping to multiple alternatives? Do I pine for the days when I had to decide which network(s) to join, which of the 700 aggregation services to use, etc? Absolutely not. I'm lazy and have enough trouble keeping in touch with people as it is. Facebook does the job for me, plain and simple. That's why I'm staying put.
blog comments powered by Disqus