
Facebook Makes It Official: You Have No Say - phwd
http://dashes.com/anil/2012/11/facebook-makes-it-official-you-have-no-say.html
======
jmillikin
The author's proposed solution is to give users the illusion of control, by
adding a set of radio buttons to the settings dialog which claim to limit how
"other people" can use a post. But the very strictest option is today's
default, which people are protesting for being too permissive!

What people are actually asking for is a way to forbid _Facebook itself_ from
using or copying a post, which any technically- or legally-minded reader would
interpret as forbidding Facebook from storing posts at all. Obviously most
users don't actually want their account and posts to be deleted, but they're
asking for just that, and become angry when Facebook does not comply.

If you are truly upset that a company somewhere is making money by hosting a
service that you post your private life to, there are a couple simple
solutions:

1) Find some registered non-profit with blog hosting (does this even exist?),
and only post there.

2) Host your own site, set a password so only your friends can see it, and
only post there.

3) Stop posting your private life online.

~~~
imsofuture
It's super, super silly that Facebook users feel so wed to the service that
they demand a say in it's governance. Sorry, that's just not even close to how
it works.

Your options are restricted to playing by Facebook's rules or leaving. It's
okay to leave, it doesn't hurt at all, except for the occasional impulsive
typing of 'faceb' into your URL bar before you remember what life was like
before Facebook, and in fact, what it is like after it.

~~~
kijeda
I find this mentality, one I've often found in the US, disturbing.

I've had the benefit of living the better part of a decade in Europe where
data privacy protections are stronger, and there is a resulting expectation
that companies can only do with customer-provided data what they had agreed to
when it was supplied. That means only using data for the explicit purpose it
was gathered and not changing or using the data for expanded purposes later.

It is bizarre to me to think that one should just accept that the receiver of
the data can unilaterally expand the use of it later without informed mutual
agreement.

~~~
pekk
The 'mentality' is that if you don't like what the site is doing with data,
you should leave the site and not use it.

Do you use Facebook from Europe? If you are not using it, then you are
probably not really disagreeing with what the parent said.

I really could have done without the anti-US bigotry here, it is flamebait and
not entirely related to the topic

------
lukejduncan
tl;dr: Any illusion of privacy on Facebook is just that: an illusion. Everyone
needs to realize that in the privacy convo.

Four-ish years ago Facebook made all private profile pictures public. No
warnings, no options. My girlfriend at the time (soon to be wife) and I
weren't publicizing our relationship then because of serious cultural and
religious issues that we knew we'd face when we told our parents. We didn't
get to make that decision, because a picture of the two of us was her profile
picture... one day it was private and the other it wasn't. This had a profound
impact on my life in a very real way and has come to represent everything I
expect of privacy on FB.

Anything you do on Facebook is owned by Facebook. It says so in ther TOS. If
they wanted to make a Billboard out of an embarrassing conversation you had on
the site they could. Any illusion of privacy is just that: an illusion.
Zuckerberg an FB have been very open about the fact that they see privacy as a
dead concept, and that everything should be share by default.

The sooner everyone realizes that there is no such thing as private data on FB
the sooner we can approach the service on realistic terms.

~~~
danso
Everything you said is spot on, but your particular situation was not unique
to FB. If your relationship was a very sensitive issue, then it was bound to
be revealed unexpectedly if it was a profile photo...there's no FB setting
that will keep your friend, or a friend of a friend, from passing that photo
along to someone who you don't want to see it. I don't mean that you can't
block friends of friends from seeing it on FB...rather, I mean that you can't
block a friend passing it along rough email or in careless bar chatter.

I'm not victim blaming here...but pointing out that the Internet as a whole
makes unwanted sharing much more frictionless...and the enemies of our privacy
will not always be corporation or high tech blunders.

~~~
lukejduncan
Definitely true. I just mean to mean to illustrate that on FB the very
definition of private changes. One day something is explicitly private, the
other FB decides its unreasonable.

I'm not even blaming Facebook per se. This is a whole new territory and
they've been anything but timid with their approach to doing what they think
is right. That boldness is probably necessary. But, with that in mind users
have to recognize exactly what that means to them.

------
iyulaev
I don't understand why anyone is surprised by this. Facebook is a commercial
service that aims to make money from advertising to its users. That is the
goal. Keeping the info (that you willingly put up!) private is only important
insofar as it doesn't upset users enough for them to leave. Experience has
shown so far that the majority of users don't care enough about privacy to
stop using their service. Furthermore I can't even think of any other
commercial service providers that allow users to vote on their policies.
Actions speak louder than words; if you want facebook to change its course,
vote with your $ and your feet.

~~~
Haul4ss
This. Seriously, you're not paying for the service. _You are the product being
sold._ Don't like it? Go somewhere else.

~~~
aeturnum
>you're not paying for the service. You are the product being sold.

This line bothers me because the relationship is more complex than that. You
are receiving services from Facebook and in return you are giving them your
information. Facebook does not sell your information to anyone - instead they
sell the ability to advertise to different groups of users (who you are one
of). To say that you are the product implies that companies are getting "you,"
but they are only getting ads displayed on Facebook. They do not have any idea
about you or your specific information.

If you don't give Facebook information, it directly hurts Facebook. If you
don't browse Facebook, it directly hurts Facebook. Their revenue absolutely
depends on users enjoying their service.

Broadcast television uses a similar model, but no one accuses them of
"selling" their users.

~~~
shmerl
You use a false premise, that in order to create a social network, it has to
be set up to profit from users information through advertisement. Who said it
has to be so in the first place?

~~~
aeturnum
I didn't say anything about social networks in general, just about Facebook's
relationship with their users. I didn't mean to imply anything more than that.

~~~
shmerl
I see. Well, I don't think there is a real way to "fix" Facebook in this
regard. The problem should be approached on the deeper level - i.e. the whole
network should be built differently. So other alternatives have a chance to be
better.

------
danso
FB's mistake was to even propose this voting scheme...I would think of all
entities, they would be the first to know firsthand the worthlessness of
quantity. How many users in the last week posted that stupid legal notice
asserting rights over their content?

The real truth is that users in general have little concept of what they're
giving over to Facebook. And even if FB made it dead easy to understand their
TOS, the majority of FB users would still be clueless.

IIRC, one of the biggest controversies in FB's history was when it implemented
the newsfeed. Apparently, users thought that if something was easier to find
(i.e. not having to visit each person's page to see their latest activity), a
sacrosanct privacy line had been crossed. And this was back when FB was mostly
college students who, you know, are supposed to be in a state of constant
learning and reading.

The news feed was FB's killer feature back then (compared to MySpace) and if
it had been put to a vote, users would have undoubtedly quashed it. Is it any
wonder why FB will never take users' concerns seriously?

To go back to the sham-legal-status-update thing that was being posted...it's
just kind of sad that at this stage of the Information Age, the average person
is still too lazy/too entitled/too dumb to look things up and think for
themselves. FB may not be the "good guy" but to rehash the old Batman cliche,
it seems to be the social network we deserve.

~~~
grecy
> FB's mistake was to even propose this voting scheme

I have to wonder if Facebook did this on purpose, knowing they would drop it
when it not longer served a purpose.

When Facebook was new, they gained critical mass by working the "exclusivity"
angle. Originally, they were only going to allow ivy-leaguers to join, which
tricked them all into joining because there is nothing they like more than an
elitist society. Once the purpose was served, Facebook dropped that whole idea
in the interest of a bigger user base.

When privacy was a big topic, Facebook came up with the whole voting scheme to
ease everyone's mind. Now that has served it's purpose, Facebook are dropping
it and moving on.

You have to wonder if going back on their word has actually been a good thing
for Facebook.

------
casca
When people mock the Facebook share price and question their long-term
sustainability, remember that they're in a position that no company has ever
been in before. They are trying to monetize personal data that has been
provided willingly. They'll always be walking a fine line of giving their
users what they'd like and giving their customers what they'd like.

This is just Facebook trying something that is entirely consistent with their
philosophy and historical trend.

~~~
mikegioia
You want to know a way to "monetize personal data"? Let users pay $20/year to
not have their data harvested by the highest bidder.

~~~
panacea
Wouldn't work, because they're also monetizing _inter_ -personal data.

------
shmerl
It's ironic, that in the comments section of the article it says: _Comment
using... Facebook_. Some other obscure options aren't helpful either. Why
can't one comment using Mozilla Persona or OpenID? If someone is criticizing
Facebook (very reasonably), but at the same time requires Facebook to comment,
it sounds hypocritical in the least.

More on the subj itself - I'm not sure really what the author expected from
FB. They don't care about users' privacy - period. I.e. they don't respect
their users. If you don't appreciate it - quit using Facebook and use privacy
respecting social networks.

~~~
gtd
I don't think it's ironic because Anil clearly values Facebook and wants them
to "do the right thing". This is made clear in the opening paragraph:

> _Now, Facebook follows the steps that most tyrants do, quietly moving from
> sham elections to an official policy that users will have no vote in site
> governance._

When I read this my first thought went to the ridiculousness of comparing
Facebook to a dictator. But it shows that Anil sees Facebook as almost
necessary infrastructure. _Not using_ Facebook is not a realistic possibility.
Instead we must hope against hope that they will right their tyrannical ways.

Frankly I'm not holding my breath, but Anil has reach so maybe something good
could come out of it.

~~~
pdonis
_But it shows that Anil sees Facebook as almost necessary infrastructure. Not
using Facebook is not a realistic possibility._

If he really thinks that, he needs to take a serious step back. This is just
ridiculous.

~~~
gtd
I don't think he consciously thinks that, but his entire argument seems to
stem from Facebook being such a necessity that they are morally obligated to
follow social norms or be somehow coerced into doing so, despite evidence that
this has ever been a possibility.

------
yason
What are the alternatives, effectively?

All I want is:

\- a profile page where I can post something personal

\- comments to the posts so that my friends can share what they felt

\- sort of a like button or flag to let friends mark posts they like

And maybe these are pretty useful as well:

\- ability to post links and images

\- ability to create topic specific groups and invite friends there to discuss
things

\- ability to create events and invite people there for rsvp

And last, the must-have feature:

\- my friends are there, also the non-technical ones

While the first items are technically easy (Google+ could do it!), Facebook is
winning on the last entry. I don't particularly like Facebook but keeping in
touch with friends using email just doesn't work either anymore. Some people
don't even have email. Personally, I either make a phonecall or text if it's a
close friend, or write nice comments on Facebook if it's a not so close
friend.

To free ourselves from the shackles of vendor lock-in, a generic social media
protocol similar to email should emerge at some point. It shouldn't matter if
I'm on Google+ and you're on the Facebook: if we're connected we're connected
and the protocol translates the news between the two implementations.

------
steve8918
This seems like an overreaction. Facebook has a billion users, so trying to do
things like encourage voting is a nice sentiment, but practically useless in
my opinion.

It's better for the company to just do what they want, and if they overstep
their bounds and if people don't like it, they'll leave, just like they did
with MySpace and Friendster. And if people stay, then it means they don't
care. People are allowed to have the right to not care what people do with
their personal data. I personally care, so I would close my account, but I'm
sure there are swathes of people that simply don't care.

------
Aqueous
You do have a say. Stop using Facebook.

~~~
graue
Serious question for you and everyone else urging this:

How do you maintain weak ties?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_ties#Research_da...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_ties#Research_data)

Like people you see once a year or less, maybe because they live far away, or
maybe they're locals you met once or twice but just don't know that well.

Weak ties can be incredibly valuable for finding events, housing (or
roommates), partners, even jobs.

I've been living happily without Facebook for over a year and doing fine. But
I realized I didn't have a solution to the weak tie problem, and was missing
out on opportunities.

Visiting New York City, I met some great people and thought how nice it would
be to hang out with those same people next time I'm in NYC, so I wouldn't have
to start over there socially. But that could be a year from now. After a year
of no contact, if I call them out of the blue, it'd be awkward at best.

This problem actually motivated me to sign back up for Facebook. In theory any
social network could do the trick, but no one's heard of Tent or Diaspora, and
only a handful of people you meet are even on Twitter. What most of these
folks are on, is Facebook.

I'd really like to know what other ways people keep up with weak ties, or if
some just hate Facebook so much they accept the loss of opportunities as a
cost of living without it.

~~~
sdqali
After much deliberation, I deleted my Facebook account around 1.5 years ago. I
even ensure that nothing from Facebook can be accessed from my computer.

Like you, I have lost out on the weak ties, but have decided that I would
rather lose those than let Facebook know everything in my personal life and my
activities on the web.

~~~
graue
I'm trying to find some middle ground. For example, I use Ghostery to block
Facebook comments and like buttons, so they're not aware of my activities on
the web. And I've used a special email just to sign up for Facebook, so people
don't find me there unless I want them to. I'm not friending everyone I know,
only the weak ties I don't have a better way to keep up with (i.e. they aren't
on Twitter or something else).

Not sure how it'll work out long run, but right now Facebook knows very little
about me.

------
lnanek2
I don't understand the proposed solution. Hundreds of thousands ask for the
default behavior, so the solution is to add a control so they can pick
something other than the default behavior? A line of text on the privacy page,
and maybe on the signup page, maybe with a little graphic to help it digest,
seems a lot simpler to me.

------
ck2
Well you have one say. Don't use facebook.

------
wyclif
Taking "off", not taking "of." Right in the first sentence, too.

------
frozenport
I am told Facebook's mission is TO SERVE MAN.

------
Nordvind
Did you really have any illusions on this?

