The Day Facebook Changed Forever: Messages to Become Public By Default (UPDATED)
One of the most anticipated days in the history of social networking site Facebook has finally come: the company announced today that it has begun making status messages, photos and videos visible to the public at large by default instead of being visible only to a user's approved friends.
UPDATE: After we wrote this post, Facebook HQ emailed to tell us that the first wave of users who get this feature will have their messages made public by default because their profiles were already marked as public, but that when they open the feature up to subsequent users - those users will have default privacy settings that match their pre-existing profile privacy settings. Unfortunately, in our tests so far (see our screencast) - we haven't been able to successfully change our default message settings back to friends-only, it stays stuck on public. When we switch our test account from profile public to profile private and then back again, the default for message posting gets stuck at "friends of friends!"
So there are some kinks to work out here. However, it appears that we may have jumped the gun and assumed something that was not said in the Facebook blog post: that the experience of all users was going to be like the experience of the first users. The feature appears not to be working correctly and it certainly wasn't communicated about well, but Facebook now tells us that it will not be opening things up quite like we characterized in this post. We apologize for writing a long blog post based on an understanding of the situation that appears to have been wrong. For what it's worth - we think Facebook should get more messages out into the public so they can be analyzed, but we also think they should communicate carefully about privacy settings so that people can ease into it as best suits them. Read on for a discussion of the pros and cons of Facebook messages going public.
Private by default has been a hallmark characteristic of Facebook, as high on the list as the lack of MySpace garishness. It's been key in making Facebook the biggest social network on earth. Now that's about to change. Facebook has been very careful to avoid the major backlash that it has seen in the past when making substantial changes to things like privacy settings, but it's hard to imagine there isn't going to be a backlash. From a web innovation perspective, the move could lead to some of the most exciting developments we've seen yet from the world of social media.
Users can change their default privacy settings back to what it used to be - but that's not in Facebook the Company's best interests and we don't expect to see site-wide prompts about this like we did about the availability of "vanity URLs."
Update: Facebook just emailed us to say that they will in fact be making an effort to make sure everyone knows what their privacy setting is and that it is what they want it to be. From that email:
Your Publisher Privacy will stay at whatever you have set as the default. In addition, the first time you try to share something with the privacy control set to "Everyone," you'll be asked to confirm that this is what you want to do. If it's not what you want to do, you'll be able to change your setting before publishing.The first time you change the setting on the Publisher control, you'll be asked if you want to make the new setting your default, and you'll be given a chance to do this in-line. You can also change your default at any time by going to the Privacy Settings Page and clicking on Profile. From there, scroll down to "Publisher Control Default" and choose what you would like as your default privacy setting.
Remember the News Feed?
When Facebook launched its News Feed feature in September 2006, displaying all activity by a user's friends in a flowing list of updates on the page, the backlash shook the young service to its core. The News Feed is now the central feature of the Facebook user experience. The new public visibility of shared messages is going to change Facebook on that kind of scale.
Remember Beacon?
When Facebook launched its off-site advertising initiative called Beacon, users were seeing things like the purchase of a surprise engagement ring on Overstock.com exposed to a would-be wife on Facebook because people didn't understand how to deal with the new integration of 3rd party sites. The backlash was so big that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg had to try and calm Barbara Walters down about it on national television. Beacon didn't disappear but was reformed in a more palatable way. The backlash against public default visibility is going to resemble the Beacon backlash, if not dwarf it.
Facebook Naked
And now we're at today. By default, all your messages on Facebook will soon be naked visible to the world. The company is starting by rolling out the feature to people who had already set their profiles as public, but it will come to everyone soon. You'll be able each time you publish a message to change that message's privacy setting and from that drop down there's a link to change your default setting.
But most people will not change the setting. Facebook messages are about to be publicly visible. A whole lot of people are going to hate it. When ex-lovers, bosses, moms, stalkers, cops, creeps and others find out what people have been posting on Facebook - the reprimand that "well, you could have changed your default setting" is not going to sit well with people. We're sure it won't be retroactive and a lot of people will back out of being public, but it could still be a game changer.
Robots FTW
The soft fleshed creatures that we Facebook users are will likely hate the new setting, at least at first. But robots are going to love it. As the largest social network on the web, with an incredible amount of time spent on the site by its users, Facebook holds a giant reservoir of demographic and sentiment data. It is the motherlode - and it's been inaccessible so far because everything has been private so far.
This winter there was a lot of discussion of a rumored "Facebook Sentiment Engine" believed to be in the works. We wrote about what could be both best case and worst case scenarios for the opening of Facebook user data to outside analysis.
Best Case
Think of the non-commercial, public interest kind of data that could be acquired. When the economic stimulus plan of 2009 was first announced on national television - what was the reaction of people in their mid twenties who lived in the Mid West of the US? Was that collective reaction substantially different from the reaction of self-identified queer people of color living in the North East US? How did the public reaction to the proposed plan change one hour, one day or one week after the announcement? This is all very interesting and potentially valuable data that could be, for the first time in history, available in near real time. Just by listening to what people are talking about in status updates and comments.
Worst Case
The worst case scenario is that Facebook will not open a free message search API for outside developers, instead it will make bulk access and analysis of all these public messages available only to commercial firms able to pay in order to harvest the data for marketing purposes. That seems pretty likely, unfortunately.
It's notable that there is not yet an option to search publicly shared content, as in full text search of messages, on the Facebook search page. It may not be searchable at all, except through very specific and possibly paid access granted by Facebook - even though it's all visible to the human eye. As Fred Vogelstein wrote in a long post on Wired.com this week:
By Facebook's estimates, every month users share 4 billion pieces of information--news stories, status updates, birthday wishes, and so on. They also upload 850 million photos and 8 million videos. But anyone wanting to access that stuff must go through Facebook; the social network treats it all as proprietary data, largely shielding it from Google's crawlers. Except for the mostly cursory information that users choose to make public, what happens on Facebook's servers stays on Facebook's servers. That represents a massive and fast-growing blind spot for Google, whose long-stated goal is to "organize the world's information."
Comparisons to Twitter search are only useful in talking about theories of value, in terms of actual value an open Facebook search would leave tiny Twitter in the dust.
So there are two ways this could go. Free programatic analysis to the publicly shared information from Facebook users could be like a high-speed, real-time Library of Congress for all the robots in the Republic. Or it could be limited access, like the high-priced market research reports bought and sold by marketing firms about other pools of public sentiment today.
We know which scenario we're cheering for.
We also feel pretty sure how most Facebook users are going to feel about this fundamental change. They are going to hate it like most residents of the Wild West must have hated the first US Census agents.
In time, though, people may very well decide they are comfortable with their social networking being public by default. That will be a different world, and today will have been one of the most important days in that new world's unfolding.
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Facebook Twitter Envy has reached its peak - The private 'Concrete Identity' network is trying to compete with the Open Broadcast network.
Wonder if it will pay off.
Creates an opportunity for someone else to be the private network now.
Oh my. brb - need to collect some snowballs from the Underworld... While I am there I am going to be thinking about the possibilities the Facebook just gave us now that all those pictures that "only my friends will see" are about to become available for the enjoyment of everybody on the internet. Muwahahaha!
Posted by: Andy Bold
|
June 24, 2009 1:39 PM
I believe part of Facebook's appeal to the not-so-young crowd, i.e. generations who didn't grow up with "Look at me" imprinted in their genes, is exactly the fact that one is allowed to selectively share pics, videos, etc. Is this their way of getting rid of the parents, so the young people will stay? Have to go now. Need to change my setting.
I don't look for Fb to make programmatic access its (our) data freely available anytime soon. If it is, it will be very limited or access will be tiered.
I don't think they're looking drive in more pageviews or intra-site traffic by doing this, I think it's being done *specifically* to offered to the Madison Avenue set and other high bidders.
Hopefully, I'm proven wrong.
So, is FB going to change all of my current privacy settings to "public". If so, shouldn't that be against the terms of service? I don't like that one bit.
If not, is it really that of a big deal?
And how will this affect those of us who post status updates via mobile devices like iPhone and Blackberry?
Chris, given the amount of data that they already share via Facebook Platform, I think that you are going to be proven wrong...
Posted by: Andy Bold
|
June 24, 2009 2:00 PM
Hey Marshall,
I, for one, am happy about Facebook opening up some...I hate that it is such a closed network, doesn't share well with others. And, I want my content to be indexed...but then, that is likely due to the fact that I make a living off the web.
The reality is that any photo or content on Facebook could always be shared via cut and paste or screenshot. Anyone who is posting things they don't want the world to know isn't the brightest bulb in the batch...
>>> So there are two ways this could go.
Or this will leave Facebook dying in two years the way MySpace is dying now.
Or someone will develope a software that breaks into Facebook and gathers the data anyhow.
Or Google buys Facebook and gets the data directly.
Or someone founds Fridger(TM), the Web 3.0 Social Web where you can show your Refrigerator's contents in real time to every one interested or no not interested and all users leave to become Fridgers.
Or the USA go into bankruptcy taking all their start-ups with them and we all have to join russian and chinese networks.
Or the whole idea of business models in a self-proclaimed new economy turns out to be a fad and we all have to go back to the Wild West anyhow.
In earnest, you wrote a very intelligent analysis. But I'd never dare to predict only two posibilities in a medium as fickle and chaotic as the internet.
If facebook is starting this feature with users whose profile is entirely public, thereby making the default setting for that group "public", why do we assume that the implementation for users who are NOT set as public would be the same?
It is possible, but we are really basing this reaction solely on a beta visual?
Patrick, see the FB company blog post about this, it's the first link in our post here. It's not an assumption, that's the plan.
Whoa this is big news, for the time being at least.
Hopefully the best case scenario will pwn the worst care scenario. I think companies should stick to their core competencies. Though its to earl to predict how the public is going to react to this, I for one am a little bit skeptical for from analytics point of view sure this seems like a great move, but from a more personal point of view, I am not too sure if I want my boss looking at what I have been upto. Or worse, my mother :)
Oh and BTW, the facebook blog link that you shared at the beginning of the post is broken.
Whoa this is big news, for the time being at least.
Hopefully the best case scenario will pwn the worst care scenario.
I think companies should stick to their core competencies. Though its to early to predict how the public is going to react to this, I for one am a little bit skeptical for from analysis point of view sure this seems like a great move, but from a more personal point of view, I am not too sure if I want my boss looking at what I have been upto. Or worse, my mother :)
FB definitely has the advantage and one gets the feeling that it might lose it due to this move. Though I am merely speculating.
Oh and BTW, the facebook blog link that you shared at the beginning of the post is broken.
Bye bye facebook, this us yet another attempt to copy Twitter, but Twitter does it better. This will mark a stag of the beginning of the end of facebook. Engagement amongst Oder tenure levels already beginning to fall off....
Not a fan of this move. Facebook's focus on privacy options is the main reason I adopted it while staying away from MySpace.
It's very possible I'm missing it, but I don't see where in that blog post it says that messages will be public to all by default. Not being snarky, but would love to know where that is.
The Facebook post says that users who already have set their profiles to Everyone are currently included in the beta, so I'd imagine their setting would be Everyone by default. But I too don't see anywhere that the post says every user will get switched to Everyone by default. That really doesn't make sense, especially considering how Facebook has made access changes in the past.
There hasn't been a company on the 'Net that has gone from good to better, usually it's good to worse.
I can't stand Myspace, takes forever to download. I've stopped going to youtube now that they have ads covering the videos.
Facebook, I don't know. Maybe this PUBLICization will cause me to stop using it.
Why do these sites always have the newest postings last?
"The reality is that any photo or content on Facebook could always be shared via cut and paste or screenshot. Anyone who is posting things they don't want the world to know isn't the brightest bulb in the batch...
JeanAnn Van Krevelen Posted by: JeanAnn Author Profile Page | June 24, 2009 2:08 PM"
That depends on your privacy settings, yes? For example if my profile is public then yes my pics could be cut and pasted but if my profile is closed to just those I am friends with then ONLY those who are my friends could get my pics that way. Though why anyone would want my pics is beyond me...
But as far as the things people post - IF their profile is set to be viewable by friends only then there is a reasonable assumption of privacy there. By undertaking this action is facebook then bucking this assumption? Is facebook going against a user's wishes by making their status public by default if their profile settings are for friends only? Personally if someone is that bored and want's to know my facebook status, whatever... but for those who keep their profiles private this is pretty much a slap in the face.
Hey Marshall,
Isn't this title inaccurate? Where does it say that status updates are going to be public by default? That makes no sense and deserves a serious uprising if that's the case. What's stopping them from making all my photos public all of a sudden? I don't think you are right about this and might want to consider changing the title. If this is accurate then this is going to deserve some serious follow-up posts.
Best,
Nick
The main issue I see is there are so many users under 18 that are on Facebook. I do believe "children" (which includes non-adult teenagers) are entitled to special rights of privacy. There is strong precedent for this as FB started as a site for students.
Making such a sea change in the culture of a community this large and diverse is full of pitfalls and opportunities as you mentioned Marshall. Adults can deal with the consequences of their actions; it's a different story for kids.
To be sure a lot of the irritation of FB has been its "closed-ness" but that has also been its main draw for so many users. I too will be watching to see how this implementation unfolds.
Not sure why they won't be googlable...
Posted by: Bindu Reddy
|
June 24, 2009 3:19 PM
For someone who makes her living on the internet, JeanAnn certainly isn't the brightest bulb in the batch.
There's a world of difference between my friends screencapping my photo and forwarding it around via e-mail, and Google (and every other search engine) indexing all my data so that anyone can type in my name and see everything I've ever said/done/posted on FB.
JeanAnn, you may be a publicity whore, but some of us are primarily on Facebook to keep up with our real-world relationships. No, I don't post anything on FB that I wouldn't want to get out, but I do expect a reasonable degree of privacy.
Good, this will just hasten the drive to kill the walled garden approach and dump Facebook for a free and open operation using better tools that are more configurable.
Ditto entry number 22, above. If understood correctly, FB is running afowl of previous grandiose promises in terms of simple respect for users.
It's news to me....
Posted by: angrykeyboarder™ (Scott)
|
June 24, 2009 3:33 PM
With all due respect, perhaps you could have just linked to their document (which you did) and leave it at that. I read their document and in the first few paragraphs have a MUCH clearer idea of what the deal is... minus all the hyperbole. Seriously, it's okay to make an editorial comment... but honestly, your article just confuses the matter and seems to ignore the fact that if you're already set up with your facebook profile set to private then this totally doesn't affect you at all! (Did you say that?)
Twitter lovers...Facebook just crushed you.
Doesn't Facebook have an 18-and-over only policy in their terms and conditions? It doesn't help with the problem, but it does give them their get out clause...
Posted by: Andy Bold
|
June 24, 2009 3:41 PM
Eeep. Thanks for that. Shared this on Facebook so that my friends (though truly everyone 'cause of the settings) will know to reengage their privacy settings.
Posted by: Miss Elle
|
June 24, 2009 3:42 PM
C.A. - I think you completely missed JeanAnn's point, and insulting her so ignorantly in the process says a lot more about you than it does her.
I think her point - with which I fully agree - is that anybody who posts something to Facebook behind the privacy wall and expects that it is therefore protected from ever showing up on the public Internet is inviting disaster. To expect that every single person you've ever friended will respect your privacy settings just isn't reasonable - or safe.
You are right, this kind of breach isn't of the same magnitude as all the data being fully indexed, but the danger isn't just in everybody having access. It only takes one or two of the wrong people getting hold of it to ruin you.
There was an incident just recently (UK, I believe) of a young politician posting a slightly "racy" party picture to her private Facebook. A friend reposted it publicly in fun and the furor began.
As I tell anyone I do social media consulting for - if you couldn't live with it being shown to your boss, your spouse, or your worst enemy - do NOT post it on the Internet. Once up, you cannot control it, no matter how private, secure, or anonymous you may think it is.
Paul
I agree, I think this change will lead to another backlash against Facebook. I believe most people like to keep their messages private and will want to continue to do so.
Facebook has already had serious privacy issues and I think this is another major one. Are they going to want to open photos up to Google Images next? Automatic posting of photos to Picasa or Flickr?
While Facebook does have a huge amount of people using it, we know that can change quickly. What is the next Facebook? If they keep upsetting their users like they do, they may just drive people to their next competitor.
Why do they feel they have to be so much like Twitter? The two services are very different. I don't use one or the other; I use both. I will continue to use both, unless Facebook decides that everything I post there should be public domain. If that happens, I will be looking for Facebook's next competitor.
the Best Case scenario is still a real possibility. Facebook has already developed a way to make News Feed results searchable by users. (http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/16/facebook-fixes-search-but-only-in-beta/) If public postings can be added to your news feed, then once news feed searches are released to everyone, anyone with a Facebook account will be able to search public data.
So wait, will things stay private or not? There's no clear consensus in this article.
For me (and I suspect millions of others), Facebook's GREATEST appeal has been the fact that it was locked down so it was only for your family and friends. Sure I realise it's not truly private, but it's a lot more private than most alternatives.
I am a satisfied member of Facebook & strongly believe this wont turn out to be a thought less wrong move!
And just as I was trying to explain Facebook to some friends it changed again. It's hard to stay on top of all the changes. Why don't they send out general announcements about changes? I definitely don't like this one.
I'm dating a man who's ex nearly destroyed him because of posting private photos taken of him/them together along with photos of his young children. He is still on probation from seeing his children because of the 'pedophile light' she portrayed.
People use FACEBOOK to share photos, thoughts, dreams, etc with the people THEY CHOOSE. Want to let Mom/Dad see one thing, friends see another and the 'freaks of the world' see it all? Go for it. But if FACEBOOK goes against MY "friends only" default (if they plan to) .. me and my "friends only" will find another FB WANNABE.
I'm in internet radio and I can promise you, I'll spread the word. This is a bad move, FB.
This seems to fly in the face of the new EU recommendations for Social Networking Sites. See this pdf:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2009/wp163_en.pdf
Marshall, no disagreement that the way Facebook communicates there intentions is poor at best, but this was a jump to an assumption that they were forcing peoples hand. That being said, not as if they have not made that mistake before. This is an important topic and process to remain on top of because at the end of the day, the users should set their privacy setting, not a default.
Thank you for your information my friend.
This is where Facebook jumps the shark. Anymore of this kind of nonsense and my Facebook page will be deleted just like my MySpace profile was last year.
Oh pfft, Facebook. I never liked it though I use it from time to time for friends and private use. But I don't like this at all, just makes me dislike it evne more.
I have come to really appreciate social networking on facebook and now use it exclusively.
If all (or even some) of my posts & photos, etc become public by default and if I have ANY trouble with retaining my chosen level of privacy on facebook --- I will close down my facebook account and leave you in a FLASH! I suspect many others will, too ...The best part about facebook is the ability to EASILY control access to my info. If you can't manage to give us this option, someone will pop up who will and that's where many of us will move to!
Please do **NOT** create a default of "everyone" being able to see my personal posts, photos, etc !!!! Why not have the default be "friends" and then those who want to have their lives seen and commented by "everyone" can make that choice????
read more:
http://blablabla.ee/Artiklid/artikkel/255
http://blablabla.ee/Artiklid/artikkel/409
After the trouble around Facebook messages going public in the beginning of this year I've expected that the urge for Facebook to get closer to the success of Twitter or even overtake it because of their possibilities with pictures et cetera, won't stop after the public outcry.
Once again a good idea has been destroyed by greed and megalomania - farewell facebook. Hartmut Rast, London
read more:
http://blablabla.ee/Artiklid/artikkel/368
http://blablabla.ee/Artiklid/artikkel/256
Google is showing Facebook friends in search. I just hope the whole profile doesn't get public now by default.
“THE DARK SIDE OF FACEBOOK, AKA, “DISGRACEBOOK,” OR FACEBOOKS COMPLETE LACK OF CUSTOMER SERVICE”
The unaired dark side of Facebook, or should I call it “Disgracebook” because of the extremely poor disgraceful way Facebook treats its members. The reason I say the unaired dark side of Facebook is I have yet to see anything announced on the prime time major news outlets about the disgraceful practices Facebook uses on its members. The Internet is bursting at its seems with unhappy disabled Facebook members who have posted thousands of complaints everywhere it is possible to post complaints about Facebooks complete lack of customer service and mean spirited disregard for concerns, questions and feedback from members and former members.
If anyone thinks Facebook is “listening” to its members or advertisers or anyone wanting to communicate with them, they simply DO NOT know what they are talking about! Facebook ruthlessly, rigorously, relentlessly, and remorselessly walks all over its members with hob nailed boot polices of culling members from membership for unspecified unknown reasons and then accuses the permanently disabled unacceptable members as “possibly” being guilty of spamming or “possibly” being guilty of harassing other members because of asking too many members to be friends at an unspecified rate. Facebook goes on to permanently disable unacceptable members accounts that have too many friends, belongs to too many groups, pokes too many unknown times, sends too many email messages and on and on and on. The founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, says that Facebook members seem to take a “personal ownership” of their Facebook accounts. Well, golly gee Mark, Facebook is supposedly a SOCIAL Internet program that people join to meet and make new friends. Making new friends, at least to me, is personal and publishing real photographs and genuine personal information on Facebook seems personal to me. Maybe you should say in your rules and regulations that Facebook wants members to be real and genuine but do not join Facebook for personal reasons and do not expect to be treated in a true genuine caring manner because Facebook does not care in the least about what you think or how you feel. When Facebook says you are guilty of breaking polices you will be treated with complete lack of respect in an impersonal sterile manner and declared unacceptable and permanently banned from Facebook without recourse.
On Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook Fan Page Mark states “I’m trying to make the world a more open place by helping people connect and share.” I am glad Mark says he is “trying etc.” because, in my opinion, he certainly has NOT accomplished his mission. Facebook is one of the most closed undemocratic uncaring unsocial business operations since the formation of the Gestapo. Facebook operates carte blanche without regard of a due process of rights for members Facebook deems unacceptable to be a member of its supposed Internet social network service and therefore, disables their account without warning. Facebook justifies its policy and actions under the euphemism of “protecting members” from “repeated actions that COULD BE CONSTRUED as spam,” and from anything Facebook makes up to be a threat to its security. Although Facebook publishes what it SAYS are its rules and regulations, Facebooks security is a computer program of unpublished nonspecific rules and regulations that are enforced by an automated, autocratic, uncaring broadly defined bureaucratic computer program that members violate without knowing it and then booted out of Facebook. If this is not Gestapo like policy, I guess I do not know what it is because it certainly is un-American to say the least!
Furthermore, in my opinion, Facebook is NOT a Internet “social network service.” When joining Facebook you are, in reality, joining an Internet money making “computer advertising program” that is set up to look like a Internet “social network service” for the public. In essence, the Internet “social network service” is a screen or cover for a “computerized advertising” empire designed with one thing in mind, the bottom line profits for Facebook investors. I am all for investors making a profit and if the investors will wake up they can increase their profits by paying attention to the consumer members of Facebook. As it stands now, the consumer is NOT king on Facebook. Facebook can at any time without having to explain its decision declare any member persona non grata. Is it any wonder Facebook members are treated with total disregard for being feeling thinking real people? I have yet to know of a computer program that is able to feel and or to reason. When placing a phone call to Facebook you are treated rudely and crassly informed to use their computerized automated services, which do not reply when used or quickly transferred to an automated answering service to which there is no reply.
Why a business would choose to advertise on “Disgracebook” is beyond my ability to understand sound business practices? I know that I will not purchase any goods or services advertised on “Disgracebook” and I urge anyone mauled by “Disgracebooks” insensitivity to boycott anything advertised by this disgraceful, despicable, sorry company!
If “Disgracebook” is treating its foreign members as poorly as it treats its domestic members “Disgracebook” is not only giving itself a black eye it is giving the United States of America a black eye. Is there anyone out there who cares enough and can communicate with Facebook to help Facebook become a user friendly Internet social network service it claims to be?
I strongly urge anyone interested to please research what I am informing you of because I assure you the situation I have explained is the truth and nothing but the truth so help me God. Until the media and or business community and elected officials takes notice of and makes public “Disgracebooks” dark side inhuman treatment of people Mark Zuckerberg and his staff and money making computer program will continue to execute its falsely accused unacceptable members and fill up trenches behind “Disgracebooks” California headquarters with their discarded accounts.
1 2 Next