
We all be hatin on Facebook, right? - ErrantX
http://www.errant.me.uk/blog/2010/05/we-all-be-hatin-on-facebook-right/
======
pasbesoin
I didn't see this point addressed: I gave Facebook information under terms
that specified its availability was being restricted (e.g. only available to
FB friends). Facebook subsequently took that information that I already
provided under those terms and/or that understanding, and made it public (and
publicly searchable).

If they want to change their privacy policy with respect to new interactions,
ok, I can live with that (I may not like it, but I can "vote with my feet").
However, when they expose information they'd previous agreed to hold private,
that's crossing the line, in my opinion. It's on that basis that I call them
unethical and immoral.

The fact that they _continue_ to refuse to speak directly to this point, only
strengthens my opinion and the arguments made on this basis.

The previous information should retain its prior scope of exposure. If
Facebook feels that is not technologically feasible or reasonable, it should
be made unavailable unless the user explicitly opts to re-expose it under the
new model. If that's more work for Facebook, tough. Being ethical isn't always
the easiest course.

In my perspective, control over privacy was a major factor in building their
brand. They seem to be undermining this very factor. Whether that will work
for them in the long run, is an open question. It may be that their dominance
in owning and controlling the leading "social graph" changes the paradigm for
success; privacy is no longer needed to secure and grow the brand. It may also
be that as the more general population gets up to speed on privacy and its
implications, they will come to value the brand less. And as some other
commentors have pointed out, some people are already beginning to find
Facebook less interesting in their personal experiences, because their friends
are increasingly policing their contributions and so the content is becoming
increasingly generic and uninteresting, especially in volume.

(Purely anecdotal and somewhat incidental: I've been noticing how many of my
own friends' profile pictures are now of their pets, or some or another piece
of artwork.)

~~~
ErrantX
I see your point. And you are right.

I suppose in a sense the problem is fb try to leave everything open by
default. And, so, that also is something we need to argue against.

~~~
pasbesoin
They shouldn't pre-emptively open up what they previously allowed to be shared
in a restricted, private fashion. If they want to be "all open" with regard to
new contributions after the time of such a change in policy, I may as an
individual user not like it but then I can choose whether I continue to
participate. If they want to open up my previously shared, restricted, private
information, that should only occur if I opt-in to the change of availability
for that information.

Further, it doesn't build a favorable impression to force users to continually
monitor both the site and third party sources of news for changes to the site
and resulting privacy ramifications, and to force them to navigate numerous on
site dialogs -- and third party documentation in order to understand the
changes and those dialogs (and now also to locate partner pages on the site in
order to use the opt out / block links located only on those pages) -- in
order to control to the extend still available what elements of their
information are publicized.

Maybe for the bulk of users it just won't matter. But for those who do care,
this all has done an excellent job of breeding both distrust and a tinge of
exhaustion. I wonder what they think the split will be between those who "give
in" and those who "get out". Even if a fair number "give in", it's going to be
a while, if ever, before they lose the feeling of having been manipulated.

In that sense, as I think about it, Facebook is leveraging its position
exactly as a bully would. It's using the social environment -- its control of
your social connections through its site -- to coerce the behavior it wants.
Maybe that's what we should be calling Mr. Zuckerberg and his executive team,
a big old bully.

~~~
ErrantX
> They shouldn't pre-emptively open up what they previously allowed to be
> shared in a restricted, private fashion.

It's interesting because, actually, that hasn't happened. Not recently anyway.
People have just noticed recently, or taken particular offense.

The nice thing now is that it is completely opt out.

