De-Mock-cracy In Action: Facebook's Open Governance
Following February's slew of complaints regarding Facebook's Terms of Use amendment, founder Mark Zuckerberg launched an "Open Governance" model and wrote, "If [Facebook] were a country, it would be the sixth most populated country in the world. Our terms aren't just a document that protect our rights; it's the governing document for how the service is used by everyone across the world." Today Facebook redrafted its Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and while users / citizens have until August 18th to comment, we can't help thinking the system is a bogus democracy.
After a week of acquiring Friendfeed and launching a real time search engine, the blue nation appears to be growing at an alarming rate. In order to address the growth and new promotional ecosystem, notable changes to the Bill of Rights incorporate bans on citizen marketing abuse. Facebook hopes to stop spammers from overrunning the site and as pointed out by Inside Facebook, prohibit companies like Magpie, Twittad and Sponsored Tweets from starting profile sponsoring programs. Other marketing-related points included the phrases, "You will not engage in unlawful multi-level marketing, such as a pyramid scheme" and "You will not offer any contest, giveaway, or sweepstakes ("promotion") on Facebook without our prior written consent."
As citizens of this vast country, it's nice that we can smite the spammers and illegal pyramid schemers that plague our great nation. And then I remember, this isn't ACTUALLY a country. It's a company. If it were really a nation, we would know where we're supposed to offer our comments pre-August 18th and each of the "Rights" would have been spelled out separately as amendments to a pre-existing document. In fact, by now all of this info should have arrived in our mailboxes as a poorly designed pamphlet full of cheesy stock photography.
While Facebook's "Open Governance" redraft is an admirable attempt to encourage crowd sourced decision-making, it lacks the feedback mechanism to make it a success. Critics will argue that this is intentional, but it feels more like the system (or lack thereof) was rushed to the public after the TOS uproar in February. While this amendment to the Facebook Bill of Rights is a fairly tame one, consider joining the Bill of Rights group for future updates and leaving a comment. At this rate, if Facebook acquires anymore companies or services, you might find your entire online identity living in one social networking landscape. It's not like the administration is going to change, let's just hope a loud majority can usher in a better system.
Photo credit: David Drexler
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
It's rare that I disagree with an article on this site... in fact, this is the only time I can remember it happening, but....
Dana has taken the whole country metaphor too far.
This is a business, and while it is definitely a thriving business, it is by no means a monopoly. Therefore, those who are unhappy with the business are free to jump to a competitor.
This most certainly is NOT a country, so thinking patrons should have a vote, much less a bill of rights, in how this business is run is more than a bit off for me.
It's like a bill of rights demanding Ronald McDonald change the special sauce... Huh?! Hey, if you don't like it, go to Wendy's!
Can't we just give Facebook some credit for responding to customer uproar and making improvements?
Seriously, slapping Facebook with one hand and calling it a "bogus democracy," while prodding it with the other hand to give "citizens of this vast country" to joing a Bill of Rights group so they'll have more say in how Facebook writes its Terms of Use really isn't being fair to the site.
Or being very rational for that matter.
It's just a social networking site; it's not like you have to put your house on the market to try another.
Hey Tom,
That's exactly my point. Why create a "Bill of Rights" at all if you're not going to do it properly? Facebook IS a company and can totally just change its TOS to whatever it wants. The company deserves credit for wanting to offer some sort of feedback around its governance, but the lack of a good system prevents people from doing so.
Okay, I see. Sorry then.
Wow, pretty scary dude! Im glad there is MySPace!
RT
www.anon-web-tools.net.tc
I think you missed the point. It's a marketing ploy. It sounds nice and for the vast majority who aren't as anal, it will come across as an attempt of inclusion at governance. I don't think anyone educated truly believes it is a democracy or a country and that the bill of rights is something they have full control over; but it is nice to be able to give feedback.
It is a work in progress and granted it probably was rushed out after the last little fiasco. Who knows what additional feedback systems are put in place for the future. I do applaud your voicing of this opinion but I think it could have been done in a different angle of providing constructive criticism rather than the feeling it projects of complaining.
Perhaps it is just Tom7 and I who get this 'feeling' but that's still 2 out of 3 commenters so far.
I think you missed the point. It's a marketing ploy. It sounds nice and for the vast majority who aren't as anal, it will come across as an attempt of inclusion at governance. I don't think anyone educated truly believes it is a democracy or a country and that the bill of rights is something they have full control over; but it is nice to be able to give feedback.