I’ve been a regular user of Facebook since it’s inception in 2004, when it was first marketed amongst collegians as an exclusive social network. When I heard about it from my randomly-assigned freshman roommate, I could barely grasp what she was talking about. “A face? Whose face? A book? What kind of book?” “No, no,” she said, exasperated. “F-A-C-E-B-O-O-K. Dot com!” Over the next four years, my relationship with Facebook mutated more often than Burger King’s marketing campaign; my peers and I generated online personas and expanded our networks exponentially, all under the semblance of control and ownership.
The rate of change in Facebook rivals its rate of integration into our lives. For hours on end, we update, like, share, chat and peruse the profiles of friends, bands, companies…of everything and nothing at all. This behavior makes Facebook the perfect vessel through which companies can reach their audiences. Given the time we spend on Facebook, the nature of what we share and the potential data available to advertisers, privacy is certainly important to users. But how important?
The general consensus is that consumers will continue to “sacrifice” their privacy because they value the experience so much. Maybe Facebook will continue to serve 400 million users because it’s made mistakes and innovations in a way that makes it seem like its growing up with its audience. We believe Facebook is listening and making every effort to protect us. Like parents who thrive on that semblance of control and ownership, millions of users, save for a fraction of outspoken and conscious ones (like, say, 35,000 people), won’t care about Open Graph and its ability to “target you on an even more granular level,” nor the Graph API, which “makes it much easier to parse, collate and thus search through user info.” More specifically, Open Graph allows website URLs to be part of the Facebook universe and advertisers are able to trace and track users who connect to those websites, much like Facebook Pages.
As an avid Facebook user and marketer, the big question after the ruckus dies down about things like “privacy” and “transparency” is whether or not most people care. And not only do I wonder how many people care, but who exactly cares?
We want to hear from you! Do you think a significant amount of users negatively react after companies adapt this new knowledge stream? How will Facebook resolve its liminal stance between connecting users and monetizing their participation?
Tags: Amy Ko, Facebook, graph API, mark zuckerberg, open graph, privacy
July 20th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
I don’t mind my personal information being accessible to those I allow to see it within my network, or even those who stumble upon unguarded areas of my profile. However, I do not trust Facebook when they attempt to trick me into giving them more data.
This is especially obvious when they recently forced users to link their interests to other pages within the site, or ask them to allow applications access to my profile.
This is how Facebook spam happens and i’d rather not unintentionally suggest all my friends like “Fat Guys Falling Down” or something else equally lame.
July 20th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
My personal gripes with Facebook is the lack of choice and oversight in these recent Web 2.0 integration features. When Facebook rolled out the ability to “like” practically anything on anyone’s Info page and when it increased sharing of personal information to websites with Facebook apps, the default was to be as open as possible. This is a lofty ideal befitting our new world but one that assumed user participation and violated a person’s right to express only what he/she wants to share.
They made a mistake and they corrected it, but I can’t help but wonder if they’ve even learned from their mistake. I dread future reactive rather than proactive initiatives from Facebook on behalf of its more conservative user base.
I think people angry with Facebook’s methods should focus more on oversight and accountability, preferably via an external committee, rather than boycotting Facebook use. Facebook provides too valuable a service for us to ignore.
July 21st, 2010 at 5:15 am
I firmly believe that Facebook is a valuable service that serves an essential purpose in our global culture.
I also believe that in its quest to find its ultimate location in the digital world, Facebook has made some pretty significant slipups.
I view them as growing pains, though, not deal breakers.
The last time I checked, there was no legislation currently on the books that requires you to update your status so that your social network is aware of your pet dog’s new toy, or to broadcast the fact that you like cheese curls.
This is the internet, and this is the 21st century. People need to take some semblance of responsibility for their own actions and inactions on the web.
If you signed an apartment lease, would you take the time to read the rental agreement before you signed it, and would you read your landlord’s letters and emails? Of course you would, because the terms and notifications contained in those documents would directly impact your life.
When you join a social network, you are doing something very similar. You are renting a spot on the internet where your thoughts, interests and intellectual property can reside. You may not be paying cash for that spot, but businesses and marketers who are creating and maintaining the cash flow on that site certainly are, and they have a vested interest in how you act and react in the digital world.
Therefore, it is up to you the Facebooker to keep abreast of changes, and to use some basic common sense when sharing content that you know can be read by virtually anyone with an internet connection. Staying current on Facebook policies and using a bit of judgement before posting inebriated photos of yourself on the web isn’t rocket science.
So to answer the question, yes, there will always be a small loyal opposition that will throw in the towel after Facebook makes a change or three, but by and large, I think that people do realize the value of the social network and the rare interactive opportunities it presents and will (and should) adapt their behaviors accordingly.
I would argue that with the pace at which the web changes and evolves, Facebook’s liminality may not resolve for quite some time. It will continue to walk the fine line between providing a service and monetizing its audience, and may very well cross the line again and anger a few people in the process.
But realize that monetization of an audience in and of itself is nothing new. We live in an age where we are marketed from the moment we wake up to a car dealership-sponsored radio show until the moment we fall asleep on our buy-one-get-one-half-off pillows.
We are not victims of some big corporate mind control scheme; we do in fact have control over how we act and react to the messages sent our way and the opportunities presented to us on the internet.
We’ll be just fine, no matter where Facebook finally lands in the grand scheme of the web. We just need to remember to stay saavy and take some responsibility for ourselves.
July 21st, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Nice work Amy and I totally agree. There is a vocal minority at play here. My feeling is that people today just don’t care about sharing. Professionally I think you need filters, but if you shout from the roof top that you’re buying a car or seeing a concert you don’t mind if you get an ad based on that.
Every month I get an offer from Amex and Conde Nast. Why? Because Amex sells…I mean partners with Conde to share my data. It doesn’t bother me. The same as junk mail doesn’t bother most Americans.
However, once those same principles are applied to the online world we worry. We worry because we’re afraid that what we don’t want to share will end up being shared.
July 22nd, 2010 at 2:49 am
Goodness, what a great conversation going on here! We hope to hear more from you all. I think the consensus here is that advertising is expected when using a free service, and we have a choice on whether or not to ignore it. But what makes Facebook a looming presence in our online lives is because it’s like that questionable friend who can’t keep her mouth shut. For us advertisers, we make parallel decisions to those of Facebook – what kind of data are we (knowingly) collecting and using to target audiences? Facebook is the supplier, but we’re the buyers, aren’t we? On behalf of our clients, should we perpetuate the information asymmetry between them, us and consumers? Or should we take advantage of all the information available, as long as it’s through a 3rd party, to generate consumption? The notion of responsibility, which Diana mentions, is therefore different for advertisers as people, because in a way, we’re responsible for our clients and the practice of marketing.
July 22nd, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Great point, Amy. The practice of marketing has a very questionable history with regard to privacy. Credit histories, purchase histories and medical histories are all used in ways that are not transparent and hard to opt out of. Online commerce is scary because it’s new, but in some ways the imposition of a higher standard has led to improvements. The ban of personal info in cookies is one example; Google’s Privacy Center is another.
Facebook just hasn’t shown enough respect for the delicacy of these matters. Our own poll revealed a relative lack of trust among online experts (http://razorfishsearch.com/2010/04/30/good-ol-goog/). This opinion is based on experience!
It’s getting tough to opt out of Facebook. A friend of mine just did, citing privacy issues, then emailed me to request a photo of a friend of mine in Arizona I’m putting him in touch with before his trip there. Duh.
Marketers should be tough on Facebook. We’re partnering with their business side on bigger and bigger deals. We understand the issues and can effectively represent both our clients (as professionals) and Facebook’s users (as among the most active of those — even at work (alt-tab!))