To find out how i finally got clued in to Facebook’s assault on privacy, you must stop by Tyler Romeo’s blog (http://parent5446.blogspot.com) to see why he deactivated his Facebook account.
Normally I don’t care much about privacy The essentials of my life are already known — the five marriages, four careers, multiple love affairs, hip replacement and weight issues are legendary. I can’t be fired without developing late-onset schizophrenia ( I am self-employed) and I have no shame.
I also don’t have any important information stashed on Yelp or Pandora. And that Docs thingy, I don’t even know what it is.
So why do I care? Because Tyler directed me to Privacy Settings >Applications and Websites>InstantPersonalizationPilotProgram to show how I was opted in automatically. When I tried to uncheck the box, I got a stern warning about what I would miss. Unchecking that box involved time, information, independent thought, the willingness to go against Big Daddy Facebook, confidence in my own judgment…things not every one of the 400 million Facebook users possess in uniform degrees.
I now see that between the people who aren’t thorough (me) and the people who aren’t expert site navigators, most Facebook users will never know anything hit them, much less how to turn it off.
This is not good. Not what we expect. Not what will help advance the cause of the social web.
It will male many web skeptics say “I told you so,” and that’s where the real danger lies. Francine Hardaway, Ph D
GV: 816.WRITTEN
It will male many web skeptics say “I told you so,” and that’s where the real danger lies. Francine Hardaway, Ph D
GV: 816.WRITTEN
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
It seems there is an inherent conflict between storing sensitive personal data and an ad-based revenue model. Eventually, that sensitive data will be monetized in service of delivering more ads. There is really no way around that.
Yes. And there don't seem to be other feasible revenue models. Would we pay for Facebook? How much? How many of us would/could?
Francine Hardaway, Ph D
GV: 816.WRITTEN
Well, I come from an enterprise software backround, so my DNA tells me to charge businesses for software functionality. With social networks, you have that potential, because businesses are desperate for a way to find new customers on these sites. If you create features that allow businesses to do that, but make everything opt-in for users, you could make money. But for Facebook, that won't work – they are too entrenched with an ad-based revenue model, so it would be near impossible to make that shift. Yahoo tried to do it with corporate portals around 2000 and that failed miserably. Consumer companies can't become business software companies unless they are designed as “hybrid” companies from the start.
I agree. Seth Godin might say, “purpleness” must be engineered into the product from the beginning; it can't be painted on afterward.
I don't see this as being very malicious at all. Google essentially does the same thing by reading my mail and putting up ads that correspond. I still trust that Facebook isn't “selling” my email and name (which I give yelp and pandora if I sign up anyway). It's part of the evolving customized experience of the web. Like local news feeds that are based on my IP address.
Definitely not malicious except that most people want more control over their privacy and would love to be able to opt out easily.
Francine Hardaway, Ph D
GV: 816.WRITTEN
I don’t see this as being very malicious at all. Google essentially does the same thing by reading my mail and putting up ads that correspond. I still trust that Facebook isn’t “selling” my email and name (which I give yelp and pandora if I sign up anyway). It’s part of the evolving customized experience of the web. Like local news feeds that are based on my IP address.
Definitely not malicious except that most people want more control over their privacy and would love to be able to opt out easily. rnrnFrancine Hardaway, Ph DrnGV: 816.WRITTEN