Open Thread: Thoughts on Facebook's New Constitution
Mark Zuckerberg promised to bring democracy to Facebook today with the announcement of a proposed statement of Facebook Principles and a document concerning Rights and Responsibilities. Those proposals and all other controversial policy changes to the site will be voted on by users in the future.
It's a big deal. With 180 million registered users, Facebook is more populous than all but 5 countries on the globe. This is like Facebook's new constitution. We wrote about some major problems with the way it was rolled out. Open web thought leader Marc Canter says Facebook is gradually getting to where he'd like to see them be. Stephen Schenck at Obsessable says "It reminds us of the Obama administration's commitment to posting new bills online for comment before the President signs them into law." What do you think?
We want to provide this space for ReadWriteWeb readers to share their thoughts about the state of Facebook. Please post your thoughts in comments below. Keep in mind that comments with multiple links may get caught in our spam filter and if you try to plug your own company in comments please read "How to Post Comments About Your Company on Blogs, Without Being Spammy" first.
We may select the most interesting comments for discussion in a later blog post.
If you'd like you can log in with our brand new implementation of Facebook Connect, too. That way your identity will be confirmed without a doubt. For all its faults, that's just one more cool thing about Facebook.
So what do you think about the new Facebook policies and voting?
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
"That way your identity will be confirmed without a doubt. For all its faults, that's just one more cool thing about Facebook."
Or is it? That statement -- to me -- is part of the problem w/Facebook!
We are now elevating Facebook to the level of an identity clearing house? I would be careful to give a service that positions itself as a 'social networking' tool (which to many represents a place to connect w/friends & make new ones) with a service that would validate identities...not to mention one that not long ago claimed OWNERSHIP to said identities/data!!!
I know, sounds like I am making a big deal out of nothing, but we have to be careful how we proceed. We want to maintain the **open** web we began with. We don't want to brand the web and turn it into a fascist tool for those who might claim ownership of 'our (digital) papers'.
I leave you with this as food for thought:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Awareness_Office
Thanks for providing a space to share ideas and provoke thought.
While I don't want to understate the importance of these policy documents for Facebook, I think you might overstate their importance for the world. The country analogy isn't a great one for a couple of major reasons: it's a lot easier to opt out of living in Facebook than it is to leave the place you live in the physical world, and Facebook has no real enforcement power on its own to physically harm its users.
Now, that said, this is important stuff. It would certainly be a big deal if Facebook were to decide to turn over user data to a government that got a user arrested or worse, especially for something benign ... like say, speaking out against the government, rather than posting photos of the rape they committed -- of course, because the latter is a very real possibility on this type of site, can Facebook really every promise not to comply with local laws? If the police say to Facebook, "Look User A says their newsfeed told them that User B put up some photos of a heinous crime they committed, but now User B has blocked User A's access, so we can't confirm... can you help us out?" What should Facebook's response be? As Zuckerberg said in his apology after the initial disastrous policy, this stuff is extremely complicated.
My opinion is that the moves today to make this stuff more open and transparent is a great one. Perfect? No. But it's a baby step in the right direction. Obama's administration hasn't done everything perfectly in terms of meeting the sort of transparency levels many of us hope he'll strive for. But what we have no is a lot better than what we had last year, right?
Baby steps. :)
Hey Marshall,
I think today's announcement was a huge one but can Facebook really handle the feedback from over 180 million users? They appear convinced that they can given their news feed promotion of the change but I'm interested to see how this all really pans out in the end. Will Facebook simply get a lawyer that can remove the legalese or are there legitimate changes that will take place?
Will a large enough number of people actually vote on proposed changes?
This is indeed a big deal in that they have shown that they are committed to satisfying their users who are ultimately the most valuable component of their site. Personally, I think what matters is that the users own their data. What else can a user get out of the terms of service?
We should embrace the democracy channel that Facebook is choosing to use for its TOS. I find it refreshing and quite revolutionary. Facebook really only owns the framework to a large extent it is the applications on top of the framework which govern its path. It is what people choose to use it for that makes this so interesting.
I have always believed that in order to get over Dunbars Number (http://www.notronwest.com/blog/2007/03/06/breaking-dunbars-number/) that we must use technology. Facebook has evolved through the users and if we truly want to extend our communication beyond our current capabilities we must have a common framework.
Facebook owns everything. You had a choice when you decided to enter all your personal info to the site. THEY OWN EVERYTHING!
Nick makes a great point, facebook has created an unmanageable problem by inviting input and the suggestion of voting on a (final) draft. The key language is that facebook retains the ongoing right to change/modify terms of use. If that caveat is retained, anything beyond will be window dressing, and any future owner of the data on facebook's servers may seek to monetize it however possible.
Thanks for the great comments so far folks, more things to think about than the RWW staff is able to come up with on our own!
From what I'm hearing, the whole Facebook fiasco is making them look really bad overseas in the EU. Many are seeing the first TOS and the handling of it poorly as just what it was - bad PR move. Today's short Q&A circus only strengthened the doubt the EU community has in the Facebook management team.
That is what I am hearing from the EU side of things.
As far as my own thoughts on 175 Million people voting on policy, it's just a ploy to pacify an already angry mob (see first handling of the TOS change, explanation, and pull of TOS).
I don't think this is the last we'll hear of a policy change by Facebook as the company evolves. But as in anything else, they'll learn and eventually get it right. This time, as well as the time before, they have done a POS job of putting out a TOS. :)
Rex
My opinion is that the moves today to make this stuff more open and transparent is a great one. Perfect? No. But it's a baby step in the right direction. Obama's administration hasn't done everything perfectly in terms of meeting the sort of transparency levels many of us hope he'll strive for. But what we have no is a lot better than what we had last year, right?
This mass online information gathering is all quite experimental and pioneering and it seems like it's a difficult balance between allowing user generated content or restricting user input to a minimum to be 'safe'.
We all put information out there regular without thinking about ownership, such as this comment. If your information is so important to you and no one else then keep it, don't share it.
Smoke and mirrors! If we honestly trust and believe in Facebook, then we still must believe Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Don't believe the media, press and bloggers either, they push the facebook agenda because it is in their interest to do so.
At the end of the day look at the facts. This is a company started by someone who stole the code and idea from college friends. This a company backed by a CIA venture fund. This a company that launched Beacon to sell our info to advertisers. This is a company that went to change the TOS without notifying us so they could own everything we do online.
Please folks, we need to understand who we are dealing with here.
This reminds me, i have to close my Facebook account.
Facebook did me a favour by revoking my account (with no explanation either). At least I don't have to worry about my private information ending up on a billboard in downtown Tallahassee. Thanks for the mention Marshall.
Legalese â Reality
Transparency is closer... But problematic for a large company.
Not sure we can know yet if this is a step in the right direction or smoke and mirrors for an angry mob. Either is jumping to conclusions at this point.
I'm peeked by the articles these last few days as they seem to argue for our solution, we need to hurry up!
They're touching on a very progressive meme here, crowd sourcing their next PR move if you will. Some of the problems with this has already been pointed out in earlier posts. Will the forum generate enough relevant conversation? Will enough people care? Will people not caring prove just that or that the presentation sucked?
I'd like to see the reasoning behind the legalese. Values, mission etc is nice but not what I'm talking about. What caused this hiccup in the first place? Could it possibly be they want to leverage your data to add value to their polling engine about to hit your newsfeed?
What do we know? Well, Facebook has repeatedly put foot-in-mouth in this
Was not aware that you had integrated with Facebook Connect :)
Re: So what do you think about the new Facebook policies and voting?
I don't know how I feel about this to be honest because will we ultimately make a difference. Will they allow us to express how we want the site to move forward or will it just be yes/no and move along nothing to see here?!
It would be interesting if they crowdsource the TOS i.e. put up a strawman and let edits happen from there.
Posted by: Leather ♥ Donut
|
February 27, 2009 9:08 AM
I think it's a fantastic idea in theory - the communist social network (which isn't meant as a negative thing, I also call Saturn the "communist car company," and I own..and adore...my saturn).
I don't think it's at all possible in practice. Terms of Service have been used in court for prosecution (look at the lori drew case). That makes them very serious, real legal documents that cannot be written by the masses.
Not to mention, it becomes very difficult to do the typical doubletalk that exists in terms, eg, moving from "we'll keep your data" to "we won't make it visible." Isn't the first thing people will do is ask for that to change to "we will delete your data when you do," which...for a commercial site...can be near impossible?
They've just pushed off the problem for the time being in favor of some press, but I think this will thoroughly bite them in the ass in the future.
It's a PR bandaid. They tried to get away with too much. Now they know that a huge chunk of their users will leave the site the second that a viable alternative surfaces. Whoops! That's the cost of being greedy, I guess.
While I agree this is clearly a reaction to the outcry about the TOS I don't necessarily believe that it is all smoke and mirrors. The majority of facebook users would not have gone to the extreme of removing all the content from the service because of the wording of the TOS. Most I am sure don't even really know or care what it was all about. They simply want a service they can use to talk and share with their friends. Therefore I believe that this is an attempt by facebook to recognise that their service is more then just another web service. That millions of people rely on them to be honest and sensitive with their content that they are giving to them freely. Hopefully this will lead to better decisions on the part of the facebook management team
facebook is begining to see that openness can accelerate their growth. I hope They soon contribute for real with OpenID and data portability issues.
RWW's take on FB's principles is a tad harsh, particularly with transparency and observing the law anywhere. Promoting transparency and openness is a cultural phenomenon as much as a legal issue.
There is a lot that goes on in 'corridors of power' hierarchies - whether in government, business or not-for-profit - that would benefit from openness and transparency. That's central to President Obama's change program.
FB is an important part of the 21st century social age. Why not propose a set of principles and invite comment? Isn't that consistent with the social web?
Chill out a bit folks. This move by FB is good news. Participate.
(As I posted at facebook...)
Article 4 of their Principles... on Equality... is a very noble cause. It is difficult to phrase. I hope they keep trying. The current wording is entirely awkward. Gimme short and sweet: small, crisp words and sentences.
Vote? No, I don't think so. How're they gonna deal with spam? How about "vote early, vote often"? Voter fraud?
I VERY SINCERELY appreciate specific advance notice of TOS changes. Mebbe even a BRIEF "town hall" discussion, if not too bureaucratic.
But voting? Nope.
As for Rights&Responsibilities: inevitable. I'm SELFISH. I regret different ethical standards for users and provider.
In 2.3 THEY get "non-exclusive, transferable, sublicensable, royalty-free, world-wide" rights to diddle MY info. But in 5.6, and throughout section 9 (notably 9.14) I am expressly denied the right to diddle theirs.
I salute Facebook for engaging its community regarding its TOS. However, I think the Web community is barking up the wrong tree in focusing so much on Facebook. The real problem is not Facebook; it's the fact that there is no comprehensive legal framework to safeguard privacy and personal data on the Web. This is a ticking time bomb that even McGyver couldn't defuse.
The best solution would be international law; not bloody likely to happen. The next best solution would be a U.S. constitutional overhaul to bring it in line with 21st century realities. Also not bloody likely to happen. The Patriot Act ( https://www.eff.org/cgi/search-proxy.py?q=patriot+act&sa=Go ) and its ilk are proof that in fact we are heading in exactly the wrong direction.
To say that we are all vulnerable to a fascist abuse of power is not a paranoid conspiracy theory but rather a statement of plain fact. People who gravitate toward an authoritarian viewpoint have consoled themselves with the rationalization that this power is held by the "good guys" and only will be used to fight the "bad guys." This puerile viewpoint ignores the historic fact that politics is amoral. Leaders come and go, but precedent remains. In other words, even if 'good guys' have the power today, tomorrow offer us no guarantees.
Consider the following ways in which your activities may be monitored:
* Cell phone records of calls and location.
* Credit card data of purchase, time and location
* OnStar and the like
* ISP logs
* email
* medical and insurance records
* is it really so unlikely that your very DNA sequence will be included in a database at some point, if not already?
This is by no means a comprehensive list. Notice that Facebook has little or no bearing on these items! The government has the legal authority to intercept this kind of data at will. Additionally, it is likely that other governments may have similar abilities. Another interesting question is the degree to which various international corporations and their subsidiaries share data.
I suggest that if you are seriously concerned about any of these issues, you should join and support a group such as the ACLU or the EFF. Collective action is the only way to muster the resources to have an impact on policy.
Here's another link that will give you something to think about:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/06/jailed_chinese_.html
Someone posted a question asking who Schrage is and why his name is "blacked out" (i.e. not only can't you see his profile, you can't even send him a message).
A couple of people replied, one citing his Wikipedia listing.
Within five minutes, the entire thread was deleted.
Transparency?
I have already experienced several problems with Facebooks inability to effectively communicate and deal with members on a personal level which is understandable. They speak the rhetoric of democracy but in practice are totalitarian in their automated response to problems and the idea of any possible connection to proprietary rights in personal content is an affront to any creative individual.
I recently started getting warning msgs everytime I sent a friend request to people that they "suggested" I might know. I was warned that I my account would be deleted and that only "real life" friends were to connect. I do network there (or did) and found that they wanted me to buy a commercial site to network with people that share my interests. I have made some real life friends on that site though I don't use it much anymore. The problems with getting any type of human response led me to start a new network called "Humans being Human" at http://www.hubehu.ning.com and it is dedicated to being just that...you being you and me being me without censorship, limitations, etc. and based on true democracy formed under individual freedom. As a creative individual, artist, writer, musician, I seek others who encourage free expression and censorship under the guise of "protection" isn't transparant as in clear...it's a veiled statement of power over one of the largest communities of individuals on the planet and a clear sign that they have become like King Midas and forgotten the Soldier of Fortune with his "stone soup". Without each individuals participation, Facebook is just another collection of hardware and if they want to make the rules because it's their ball, their bat, their sandlot...good for them... I'll go play where it's "our sandlot and our ball and our bat". A line from a Neil Young song seems appropriate to my thoughts on Facebooks management "you make the rules, you say what's fair, it's lots of fun to have you there". (sarcastic of course) We helped MySpace ie NewsCorp, Fox Broadcasting collect millions in advertising by playing in their empty lot and they act like they realize and are grateful for the participation, competitive in making it more attractive and easier to use while FaceBook seems to have become arrogant and careless...maybe they've grown too fast and trying to handle something that's out of their league. I wish them well but invite everyone to come play with us at Humans being Human.
Dennis Eggers
I agree with much of what Dennis wrote above, particularly:
---
"They speak the rhetoric of democracy but in practice are totalitarian in their automated response to problems and the idea of any possible connection to proprietary rights in personal content is an affront to any creative individual.
I recently started getting warning msgs everytime I sent a friend request to people that they "suggested" I might know. I was warned that I my account would be deleted and that only "real life" friends were to connect. I do network there (or did) and found that they wanted me to buy a commercial site to network with people that share my interests."
---
Facebook,like it's big sister, MySpace, are headed down the same road that I've seen every major online community venture since the original MP3.com took a similar course at the end of the last century.
Like MP3.com (which was the first significant digital music distribution company on earth), first MySpace and now Facebook have forgotten that the "users" made and make their companies. These guys don't get it. They may be great at writing code, but they suck at dealing with people. What makes these places dynamic is how the "users" choose to use the site, NOT necessarily how the owners want "users" to use the site.
MP3.com got into trouble when the "users" became literal "customers", even though they were already selling advertising space to actual customers. If they keep the same direction, I'll venture to say that both, Facebook and MySpace, will be "loser" sites, much like MP3.com has become, in less than two years.
Hey great info, I didnot know about facebook constitution. Thanks for info