Facebook Wants You to Be Less Private - But Why?
Facebook held a conference call today about changes being made to the website's privacy features but we were left feeling a little confused. A long list of settings are being collapsed into a much more manageable privacy interface and users who want to keep sharing messages only with friends and family they have approved will be able to continue doing so. But it is pretty clear that Facebook would like you to share a lot more information publicly than you are right now, with the whole wide open internet.
Why? I asked the company if they really were trying to nudge users into being more public on Facebook and if outside developers would then get access to more user data. Two out of three of the Facebook staff members on the call have now confirmed that yes, they are aiming for users to be more public. Leah Pearlman is a Facebook Product Manager and author of the forthcoming book Facebook for Dummies but her explanation for why the company wants more public sharing to happen was pretty hard to believe.
We pointed out that the new Facebook publishing interface has "everyone" as the privacy setting at the top of the list and the most realistic option, sharing specific things with specific people in appropriate context, is at the very bottom under "custom." (Most users of any system stay away from custom settings.)
Pearlman said that yes, Facebook does want people to share more information publicly than they are today. Her explanation? She said that it's hard for people to tell the difference between users with similar names when looking for their friends. More publicly shared information would make your friends with common names easier to identify.
That's not a credible reason to change the fundamentally private nature of Facebook that millions of people have long considered the best reason to use the site.
So why does Facebook want you to share more information publicly? Here are some other explanations we've heard so far.
Greater Control
Other Facebook execs say these new privacy changes are all about increasing a user's control over their privacy - letting them be "as public or as private as they want to be." Why then is the least controlled privacy setting at the top of the list and the most controlled version buried?
Furthermore, in our testing so far - the new privacy controls are actually quite a challenge to control. Changed defaults don't stick and we shared several messages further than we intended to.
We do believe the arguement that more control over privacy will help people feel comfortable sharing more information on the site, but we're not sure this really is more control. If Facebook really wanted to give users more control over their privacy when posting messages, it would prompt you each time you share something like this:
Who is this message for? 1. One or more of your lists [select], 2. all your friends, 3. your friends and their friends or 4. everyone.
That list of options goes from most controlled to least controlled, from the most familiar option to the least familiar. That's not what Facebook is doing, though. The company has an agenda to get people to share more publicly than we are today.
"More control" was Chief Privacy Officer Chris Kelly's explanation, when Pearlman said what she did about duplicate names. So Perlman and Director of Communications Brandee Barker (see quote below) acknowledge that the company is trying to move users in a more open public direction, but the Chief Privacy Officer makes an obtuse arguement that it's all about user control. That doesn't inspire confidence in the company's official privacy policies.
Traffic and Advertising
It's possible that Facebook wants to increase publicly visible real estate (your conversations with friends) so that it can bring in search traffic and sell ads. The company said today though that even "everyone" public messages will not be indexed by Google yet. ("We're talking about it," they said, "but not at this time.")
Facebook also said there would be no increase in the amount of information given to advertisers.
Facebook Director of Communications Brandee Barker told us this in response to our "why" question:
Sharing is at the core of our product. Finding people you know, learning about people you don't know, searching for what people are saying about topics that interest you can generally only happen when people are open and choose to share. By recommending more open defaults, more people will be able to connect on the site. [emphasis added by us]
Is that really true? Facebook is about learning about people you don't know and searching for what people are saying about topics that interest you? Far more often, we've heard the saying "Facebook is about people you know, Twitter is about people you want to know and MySpace is about people you used to know." (Or that you don't want to know! We don't make 'em up folks, we just repeat the jokes.) The point is, turning Facebook into a place where people meet new people and learn new things about a topic actually represents a radical change in the Facebook user experience. Facebook has always been about connecting with the people you already know.
To Be a Twitter Killer
Finally we get to the explanation that I've been most hesitant to accept but is looking more credible all the time. Facebook may be nudging people towards more public sharing because it is afraid of Twitter stealing its crown.
Twitter is the apple of the media's eye, it's the Western connection to uprising in Iran and it's more fun to talk about than Facebook. It's more interesting for geeks because the data is open.
But Facebook is so much bigger than Twitter! One report, admittedly six months ago, estimated that at current growth rates it would take 36 years for Twitter to pass Facebook in number of users and said that right now Facebook grows a Twitter's-worth of users every eight days!
More importantly, Facebook is not Twitter and Facebook's users most likely don't want it to be. Twitter is confusing, spam ridden and seems pointless to many, many people.
But if Facebook is to become more like Twitter, it's going to need to adopt a radically different stance with regard to outside developers getting access to user data. That part of my question in today's call didn't get answered. It is a very exciting idea and if anyone could pull off both privacy and data availability, we'd have thought it could be Facebook. Time will tell.
Perhaps there's some other explanation. Making Facebook like Twitter doesn't sound like the best idea in the world, but it's just about the only credible explanation we can think of for the increasingly clear push towards more public sharing on the site. Privacy settings have been confusing and today's move to simplify them is great. But Facebook is a small-group method of communication for the vast majority of its users and emphasizing list-specific messaging instead of "everyone" would be a more honest way to give users more control over their privacy.
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
"Facebook may be nudging people towards more public sharing because it is afraid of Twitter stealing its crown."
What the Facebook people said today during the meeting was really disappointing.
This was my last hope for Facebook to be *open* open, as in OPEN. Piling on 50 new sketchy little settings to shared links with is pretty pathetic.
I'll be closing my Facebook account later today, I haven't found any value in it for awhile.
This is what I hate about FB, no privacy by default, no privacy encouraged.
It's all about advertising. Private profiles are bad for ad revenue, since no one sees them. Bad for FB valuation.
You didn't think the free ride would last forever, did you?
Still the case that two members of the Facebook board are former employees of the very faceless NSA? Just wondering.
Like freedom and sex, privacy is one of those things that you do not miss until you lose it.
I for one will not be letting everyone know everything about myself. Simple supply and demand dictates that privacy will soon become the most valuable commodity in the world.
Long live Tor and Yauba!
Marshall - one of your best posts in months. Excellent analysis.
My opinion on why Facebook's investment in privacy controls has been a primary reason for why they have dominated the social and "status culture" space
http://is.gd/1kTqW
Great article, Marshall. I feel like Facebook is often very sneaky with it's users. I think for a lot of users, they would automatically assume that "everyone" meant all their friends, not necessarily the grand public since that's the opposite of what Facebook has been all about (as you mentioned). You said yourself that you by accident shared too much and you work in technology for heavens sakes. I think those "jokes" are right on. It's clear that the real answer you should be getting is "to monetize the service."
I use an alias on Facebook because it's the only social network I've managed to keep clean with only people I know *and* like. Random people, even "friends" searching for me, can't find me unless I go looking for them or we happen to have a mutual friend and I'm recognized.
Twitter, I'm more open with my identity, but I'm much less open with personal thoughts. It's like the difference between throwing a small dinner party with just friends, and going to baseball game with 50,000 other people. Both are fun.
But the two aren't interchangeable events! I throw the dinner party because I want to connect with the people I know and care for, and have good, serious conversations. It's personal. I go to the ballpark to yell and cheer, to meet like-minded fans and blow some steam off.
Facebook doesn't even get the value of what they've built. And the reason they're encouraging people to be more "open" is all about advertising, search and market research. But I hate to tell them, we're not so stupid. As long as the privacy options are there, we'll find them. And if you remove them altogether, we'll find another sandbox in which to play. Hell, we're the same people who first congregated on Friendster, and then MySpace. We're so fickle :).
You're value lies in us, the users. That doesn't mean you have to pander to us, but it does mean you have to put our best interest first. This ain't it.
Marshall, I absolutely agree with Facebook and believe we (the users) are getting more privacy control. These added features are beneficial to users who custom set their profiles and activities viewable by groups, since it gives the option to share a status/link on a case by case basis. Furthermore, Facebook and Twitter are two very different services so one being the other service's "killer" is stretching it a tad...isn't it?
Like you said, though, it's unfortunate Facebook is disconnected from the community and refuses to make the UX simpler. There is so much hunting and pecking required to figure out how to set privacy. Hopefully, they'll make it clearer but until then, isn't that what we are here for...to educate?
I am so interested in Facebook and the privacy issues as it grows out there. There is so much power that a group like Facebook, it can be scary with how much Facebook knows about us.
It wasn't all that long ago that Facebook "promised" a "Townhall Meeting" and user/member vote before TOS changes.
I would take a modus operandi change of this magnitude to be, essentially a TOS change.
I take Facebook's previous promise (albeit under pressure) to be horsehockey.
Sharing content may be the core vision but the constant changes are frustrating, just when the majority understand the functionality Facebook takes a new direction. I reserve judgement until this is available but great analysis Marshall, your views are well respected and ask the right questions!
Facebook is such a useful site for keeping a connection with your friends and this is by definition private. If I want to broadcast to the public I'm using Twitter or Friendfeed or whatever. I don't need and I don't want a single site for everything, if it forces me to carefully adjust the privacy settings.
Why can't Facebook just charge a membership fee instead of constantly scheming about how to sell the private content of their users?
I was actually wondering about the privacy controls in Facebook a couple of days ago. Since I live in the Netherlands, I'm a user of the popular Dutch social network Hyves.
The biggest difference I've seen between Hyves and Facebook is the availability of information. Hyves started out with everything being public, whereas on Facebook most information is private by default. What difference does it make? At Hyves I can spend hours navigating through pages and see what my friends are writing on their friends' (who I might not know) wall and vice versa. Scary as it might be, users spend a lot of time navigating through photos and messages of people they hardly know.
On Facebook I am often done after 5 minutes when I looked through my activity stream / wall of a couple of friends. Conclusion: more public information means I'll spend more time browsing through Facebook.
I'm curious to see the average pageviews per visit compared on Facebook and Hyves. I bet it's at least twice as high on the latter.
This will lead to the demise of FB, opening the door to the next big social networking site to overtake the crown once owned by MySpace and currently (temporarily) owned by Facebook.
great article, but this is pretty intresting...
First Friendster got stupid, and we migrated to Myspace.
Then Myspace got stupid, and we migrated to Facebook.
Now Facebook's getting stupid.
Where do we migrate next?
Marshall, great article. It makes me think seriously about closing my facebook account. I'll definitely be forwarding this to others. It seems like their practices are leaning more towards deceptive than open, very disconcerting.
Facebook may give users pause for other reasons too. For example, the last time I looked, you can't delete information from your account; you can only "hide" it. Common sense suggests that adding _and_ deleting information are complementary, and should be properly implemented basic features. What's best for Facebook is maximum information spread, which means no privacy settings. They are simply pushing things towards best interests, only those interests may not be the users' best interest. But what do you expect? Facebook is big biz, not a social charity, and if users derive benefit from the service, and the service can only become profitable through such moves, then the exchange may be fair.
I feel like Facebook is often very sneaky with it's users.
I think it's all got to do with FB trying to prevent Tweeter from stealing market share. Bing just released new feature where they display search results of tweeter messages on their page. This is possible cos tweeter is public info. FB will miss out in the long run.
Anyway, i even enjoy myself better on site like ecpod than FB. At least things are public and not private
Marshall
This is a great story.
Thank you so much for digging in and bring this to light.
Facebook is the lowest common denominator when it comes to slick double talking internet content share croppers.
What company in its right mind would treat it most valuable asset (Member/Content Creators) as if they were blind, dumb, and deaf to there needs concerning privacy.
Zuk, the internet users of the world have much more savvy than you give them credit for. You forget that you actually work for us, and that unlike your employees we will not bend and bow to your every need and desire. We will push back, and if we think you are pulling one over on us (And in this case, it is so obvious that your motives are other than what you profess) we will leave in droves.
The internet is built on Open standards (And this is something that I certain you would like to destroy, as open technology would mean that the members has true control), and this usually translates into somewhat open behavior by the companies that build technology on top of the Internets open standards. Zuk you continue to desecrate the ture ideas of openness with the feces the roll our from Facebook on a daily basis.
You are either very naive, or very arrogant to think that you can continue on your current path without burning the Facebook house down.
I m hoping that the developers of world will speak out about the fact that Facebook is eroding the open standards and open thought of the internet. The smart ones in the room at Facebook know that true openness and data portability shifts control to where it belongs, with the member/content creator.
A good read. Thanks!
Posted by: Justin
|
July 2, 2009 7:02 AM
Facebook still has privacy settings people. If you don't want your information thrown out on Google, or even to the mainstream on Facebook, simply use your privacy settings. They only take a couple minutes to set up. You can choose from letting Everyone to No one and many different variations in between view your content. You don't have to cancel your Facebook over this.
If you do want to delete your Facebook, there is a way. I saw in one of the comments that you can't, but you can. I have a tutorial on my site on how to if you really want to.
Facebook has a lot to offer, think hard before canceling.
hmm that's why i don't like facebook
Yes he does: http://www.facebook.com/markzuckerberg
Posted by: Jesse Stay
|
July 6, 2009 7:37 PM
Think this sums up Facebook issues? Try this for size: Some time ago, my underage son (15 yrs.) started a FB account against my specific directive. When going over logs, history, etc. of his PC use I discovered the account. Writing FB and requesting that the account be shut down, Facebook countered with these feeble excuses:
1. Can't tell if I'm *really* the child's parent.
2. Shutdown would break FB 'privacy' agreement w/child.
3. Protection/choices at FB serve to protect users privacy concerns.
4. I ---as a parent --- should monitor my child's PC use more closely.
I responded w/the following:
A. I can prove I'm child's parent w/ US Passport, birth cert. for each of us, Michigan State driver license, SSN, etc. and have each/all vetted by proper (state or other law enforcement) authority.
B. No 'privacy' agreement between a 3rd party and a child can exist which supercedes parental authority and governance.
C. What if Facebook is hacked or otherwise compromised? After all, two 14 yr. olds together with one 15 yr. old shut down the FBI!!
D. How the hell does Facebook think I found the account in the first place; also our kids routinely use PC's at school as well as home. DUH!!@#@??
Needless to say I don't have deep pockets, so for the time being FB is resting on it's cute responses, assuming it is safe. However, I may assure you, FB, and *any* other entity, that the account *will* be shut down ----By Any Means Necessary! Thanks.
Have A Healthy, Prosperous Day!
----Robert H. Williams
Facebook Says It Wants You to Be Less Private - But Why? http://bit.ly/19HqMi [from http://twitter.com/marshallk/statuses/2426392139]
Posted by: Marshall Kirkpatrick
|
July 16, 2009 9:47 AM
facebook should close and declare bankruptcy,
privacy is piracy, i love this honorable girl who keep setting her account into private and i cant see her,
she is as dumb as facebook management,!
why do PEOPLE USE FACE BOOK??
is nt it better to be around msn?
LETS screw FACEBOOK AND MYSPACE AND SO CALLED SOEVER,
ITS A PLACES OF EXTERMIESM
It’s a great article. I loved to read it. Last night I was searching for some good feelings sharing sites on internet and suddenly I found an awesome site for sharing our feelings. If anybody wants to do then just visit http://www.lastnightwas.com and post their feelings like me in this site.
This was an amazing article it was full of information that I think I needed. Thank you so much
No one can stop it, all we need is to cope with it.
However Face book is the second web site in alexa rank,right?
This is all a joke lol kids do want some privacy..tats why we have like 10 fake facebook accounts each..like 3 -5 for the games we have no choice but to have thousands of friends to get any place. this is the way the games are made. Half of facebook is stolen pictures and fake names..duh duh
some kids that had real accounts, wanted to kill them selfs when there friends found out they were no longer in relationship making fun, She did not know it would post that..and no way to turn off..others tagging nasty stuff with there pictures and they could not get off. 1 girl killed here self I know of from school. Most reason was cause of facebook stuff.