Looks like the A-lister brigade is out in force against the opt-in lunacy that is Facebook Beacon. Or, so it would seem, anyway, with Doc Searls, Dave Winer, and Jason Calacanis (and a few others) making some good ol’ impassioned pleas To Do The Right Thing, as this kind of default opt-in status is deceptive, and as Mr. Calacanis eloquently puts it (and I suggest this without a hint of sarcasm) they are Data Hogs as they are “amassing tons of information, selling it under false pretense, and not sharing it with the folks who gave it to them”.
It all makes sense to me, of course.
Will it make sense — as well as the real essence of their cri de coeur — to … say, for instance my *brother*? Or my wife? Or, my non-tech friends? How about *your* non-tech friends?
I mean, will average Facebookers care?
Will they care that Facebook isn’t making available in an easy XML format a copy of all of their data and transactions, available for download at a push of a button? That Facebook is actively scouring the transactions of their life so that it might be monetized now — or later, for that matter?
Let’s phrase it another way.
Do average Facebookers know or care that almost everything they upload *TO* Facebook is then *owned* by Facebook? That everything could be used / potentially abused / sold off in all kinds of ways that makes Facebook Beacon sound like of kindergardenish?
Let’s boil it down even more.
Do you think most Facebook users have even *thought* about reading the Terms of Service?
In an age where we *still* — and will *continue* to until our children our teenagers — read about how an individual’s silly exploits become public knowledge unbeknownst to them, and that news about potentially indiscrete activities could jeopardize your current and future job prospects are still very much News …
The answer to all of the above questions is “Average Facebook users neither know, nor care about the intricacies and *importance* of owning, tending, and guarding, one’s personal data, information, and relationships — unless it directly and overtly impacts their own personal sense of privacy today.”
And Facebook knows it.
In fact, its billion dollar valuation hinges on it.
It hinges on the fact that somewhere deep inside Facebook, I am sure that marketers and venture capitalists are cooking up ways to milk the herd of all its worth without actually alerting the herd to what its doing.
You know, like that privacy thing about the news feed about a year ago.
And that’s all that it really boils down to.
As long as enough people don’t notice or complain about these issues around Facebook nothing will be done. Its in Facebook’s best interests, in fact, that nothing be done.
Getting back to the point at hand, though. Will the cries of the blogging intelligentia be *enough* to galvanize forces within and throughout Facebook? Maybe. Perhaps if there are enough slow news days in the upcoming days and weeks, this could get enough publicity in the mainstream media — via MoveOn.org, for example — for it to catalyze change through public pressure.
But methinks that best way it *could* be done is through a grassroots means *within* Facebook. Someone has to start a group — someone with thousands of friends (like, the limit — 5000) who knows thousands of other connectors — to spread the word.
Because it has to be an attitudinal change, really. And that’s hard to do when its coming from an outside force — it really has to come from within.
You know what I mean.
Getting people curious about what Facebook is really about and what they’re really doing.
Get people interested about what they’re giving up in exchange so that they don’t have to go through the onerous task of actually *emailing* people, but messaging them through Facebook.
Because only if we’re able to do that *first*, will we able to get people to care about Facebook handing over all their data.
Without caring about what Facebook can or can do, and what it does and doesn’t own, nobody will ever want to know or care about these other shenannigans, which make sense to you and I.
But not, say, people like my brother.
And perhaps your brother too.
16 Comments
The same goes for youtube’s billion dollar valuation (and exit) depended on people’s don’t really care about trespassing on the copyrights (of other people’s content) — and “let the problem solve itself over time”, and “by then it’d be an alerady done deal”… /ac.
Great commentary, better than TechCrunch. Certainly opened my eyes. Thanks for this.
Thanks Jon-Michael. Very kind of you to say. ;)
Sheep? You calling Facebookers Sheep?
Bahhhhhhhhh
Oh, I guess you are right!
@Joe — Well, if not sheep, perhaps sheep-like. ;)
Hi Tony. Good article, I like it a lot. I don’t fully agree that it is apathy only. Users are trapped, and can’t easily get out and take their data with them.
I think that data ownership, portability and privacy are all sub problems of one main issue. The one issue that doesn’t seem to get addressed as much as I would hope it to be. The issue is Facebook’s faulty business model. If you are going to provide a “web 2.0″ service for free you need other ways to earn revenues. Someone has got to pay for all those servers zooming and that data being transferred. The current web 2.0 free (but ad-ased) business model is the easy way out. But it is fueled from the wrong side. It isn’t based upon user value. It is based upon network and ad monetization. And although this can be a perfectly legitimate business model in some cases it doesn’t work in social networking. It has a few major flaws that make it a terrible business model:
1. It enforces walled gardens because ad revenues must be protected. If you are “on” the network, Facebook makes a living, if you are “off” they don’t
2. It enforces network value thinking (or social graph if you prefer a more sophisticated term) not user value thinking
3. It provides the user no value, and it provides the advertiser an illusion of value
4. It spoils the user, thinking everything comes for free, thus making business models that are based upon value creation hard to implement
I could make this list longer if needed, but the point is that the fundaments of the business model are not based upon user value or user centric thinking. I don’t agree with the idea that the user doesn’t care. Of course he cares. But right now there aren’t serious alternatives for Facebook or MySpace. And because they protect their data so fiercely the user is trapped into a $ 16 Bln advertisement trap and is unable to get out.
What we need now is people that think user centric. People that build and invest in user value business models. Models in which the user pays for value, thus ruling out the need for a flawed advertisement business model. You know it is the right business model, because it inherently solves the ”who owns the data” problem. Data portability would be a standard asset of the business model, as would be privacy controls, and user value services.
I say we leave Facebook alone to do its thing. Let them exploit the user and make a living out of advertisement. If the user doesn’t care? Fine, let them be. In the meantime others can work on a new web, a user centric web in which the user gets value, controls his data and privacy, and in which he is willing to pay for it. Let’s see how long any walled garden can survive once the user finds out there are much better alternatives around!
I wrote something very similar not too long ago, though I had no empirical evidence to back it up.
I agree that it doesn’t really matter what Facebook does at this point, it’s become an institution among college-aged youth and they’re willing to overlook a few ads to see the latest pictures from their weekly ‘Get Your Drink On’ party.
That won’t change.
I do think a substantial number of users would opt out of targeted advertising and sponsorship plugs from their friends if given the option. If FB started allowing users to determine what sort of ads (target specific or generic) that were displayed on the page, there would have to be some sort of incentive for the company (losing perhaps millions of users of targeted advertising would all but derail their ad plans).
Just a heads up for a broken link: “almost everything they upload *TO* Facebook is then *owned* by Facebook”. Btw, I am extremely concerned about privacy on facebook. But then I’m a techy. All my friends couldn’t give a toss.
@Steph(an) — fixed it, thanks! And as for your friends … well, that’s no surprise, isn’t it? They probably need to hear it from one of *their* non-techy friends for it to really “count”. ;)
@113 — I think it does definitely smack of “let’s see how this flies underneath the radar”, and of a very much a “asking for forgiveness, rather than asking for permission.”
@Alexander — great thoughts on the matter, and I think you’re absolutely right on the button. I do think its an issue of having being “trapped” within the network, and the importance of creating a sustainable business model that supports everyone, including, of course Facebook.
The problem, however, is that I think ordinary people have to realize that they’re trapped in the first place; that there is a problem with how much Facebook knows, and in turn, let’s you have *back* if you want, even to the point of being able to really even delete your account
(see: http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/11/18/facebook-privacy-follies-continue/)
As for the issue of creating better networks, I agree that its a palatable solution; on the other hand, wouldn’t it be hard to scale that garden wall if all of your friends are happy to play on the Facebook side of things? ;)
@Ryan — and getting Facebook to move to an opt-in model (rather than default opt-out for the service), I think will be the biggest challenge.
Tony
So far, I’ve talked to or read about people who had no clue that Beacon existed and found the hard way – after they had made a purchase and Beacon forwarded the info to their profiles. No chance to stop it. It’s only a matter of time before something really bad happens. A person buys a book on a very personal matter and it’s broadcast on Facebook that she just bought “Living With a Sexually Transmitted Disease” or something like that.
That’s an extension of owning the data and it’s a real problem.
Also, people see their relationship with online retailers as directly with them…not with the sudden intrusion of Facebook. They’ll get rightfully burned too.
I blogged about it here from a user perspective:
http://marketingconversation.com/2007/11/24/facebook-beacon-inst-in-the-users-interest-that-means-you/
@Tony, I’m pretty confident that people will figure out that their data is used for other purposes than to create user value. People will start noticing (unwanted) effects of SocialAds and Beacon. But think of it this way. What would be the best way to get people to notice? I would use the current strength of Facebook to do this. Create a Facebook movement similar to moveOn.org and start fighting Facebook on this issue from within the network. MoveOn.org might have a difficult battle right now, but when alternatives arise, people will be more willing to move to business models that provide them true value. Right now there isn’t much choice, your friends are there, your data is locked. But if alternatives arise where you are in control, and at the same time the privacy/data issue is getting attention within the community, and 3rd party applications will help you release some of your data, the user might just be tipped away to an open service. The more Facebook holds on to the data, the larger the resistance they will create. History has taught us that already.
**cynic alert
privacy like security is a myth…I would bet that if you asked 100 people under 25, 95 would tell you that they don’t believe in privacy.
we as a society are lazy and selfish, if a product or service can add value, most are quick to sacrifice both.
I deactivated my Facebook account after reading this article.
Funny how you can’t actually delete it though. Keep this in mind if you’re ever thinking about signing up with the site.
14 Trackbacks
[...] best commentary so far has come from Tony Hung who notes rightly that the vast majority of people do not, and will not care what Facebook does with their [...]
[...] meilleur commentaire à ce jour vient de Tony Hung qui remarque que la majorité des utilisateurs sont et seront peu soucieux de ce que Facebook fait avec leurs [...]
[...] best commentary so far has come from Tony Hung who notes rightly that the vast majority of people do not, and will not care what Facebook does with their [...]
[...] best commentary so far has come from Tony Hung who notes rightly that the vast majority of people do not, and will not care what Facebook does with their [...]
[...] best commentary so far has come from Tony Hung who notes rightly that the vast majority of people do not, and will not care what Facebook does with their [...]
[...] the other side of the argument are some equally smart bloggers like Tony Hung, Don Dodge and Duncan Riley who are suggesting that it really doesn’t matter because [...]
[...] best commentary so far has come from Tony Hung who notes rightly that the vast majority of people do not, and will not care what Facebook does with their [...]
[...] best commentary so far has come from Tony Hung who notes rightly that the vast majority of people do not, and will not care what Facebook does with their [...]
[...] For one of the best comments on Facebook privacy concerns, read this post. [...]
[...] ruins everyone’s holiday shopping; Creates privacy [...]
[...] best commentary so far has come from Tony Hung who notes rightly that the vast majority of people do not, and will not care what Facebook does with their [...]
[...] of important Web 2.0 bloggers have, on cue, posted about privacy apathy. These bloggers argue that we’re sheep, that we don’t care about privacy, and that like Newsfeed, we don’t care about Beacon [...]
[...] source for Facebook [...]
[...] the other side of the argument are some equally smart bloggers like Tony Hung, Don Dodge and Duncan Riley who are suggesting that it really doesn’t matter because [...]