5 Comments »Caroline McCarthy has posted about a second offensive being launched by MoveOn.org. Apparently their statements last week were not enough. After Caroline wrote about MoveOn.org’s post, Facebook posted a response stating:
Facebook is listening to feedback from its users and committed to evolving Beacon so users have even more control over the actions shared from participating sites with their friends on Facebook. Facebook already has made changes to ensure that no information is shared unless a user receives notifications both on a participating website and on Facebook.
What this sounds like is that Facebook will soon respond by making changes to Beacon. MoveOn.org immediately responded stating that Facebook has not actually changed anything to Beacon. While they haven’t, I’d be willing to bet that Facebook is going to add the global opt-out option that was present on early screenshots of Facebook Beacon.
While most users haven’t been overly vocal about the Facebook Beacon service, bloggers definitely have. I can guarantee that the bloggers are not going to shut up until Facebook either makes Beacon an opt-in service or adds a global opt-out option. Do you think Facebook should change their Beacon system?
Some comparisons have been drawn between the anti-Beacon campaign and the furore over the introduction of News Feed. Maybe this one will blow over too, but Facebook is entering a dangerous phase in its growth path.
News Feed was a genuine attempt to improve the user experience.
The motivation for Beacon is different - it is part of a drive for monetization.
We can’t expect the site ‘for free’, and ultimately that drive will be good for both the company and its users. However, there are many ways to keep the company’s interests more closely aligned with its users’.
Most obviously, short of an opt-out default, the first Beacon purchase could be kept ‘in holding’ until the user approves it in Facebook, at which point they can choose to: (1) give advance approval for all future Beacons or (2) elect to consider them all from ‘holding’ on a case-by-case basis - each time being tempted to give blanket approval.
Some comparisons have been drawn between the anti-Beacon campaign and the furore over the introduction of News Feed. Maybe this one will blow over too, but Facebook is entering a dangerous phase in its growth path.
News Feed was a genuine attempt to improve the user experience.
The motivation for Beacon is different - it is part of a drive for monetization.
We can’t expect the site ‘for free’, and ultimately that drive will be good for both the company and its users. However, there are many ways to keep the company’s interests more closely aligned with its users’.
Most obviously, short of an opt-out default, the first Beacon purchase could be kept ‘in holding’ until the user approves it in Facebook, at which point they can choose to: (1) give advance approval for all future Beacons or (2) elect to consider them all from ‘holding’ on a case-by-case basis - each time being tempted to give blanket approval.
I would be happy so long as I knew that no stories would show up unless I specifically approve them. I’d also like to be able to report an item as being ‘not from me’. I had a case where a site posted something that I certainly hadn’t done, and it appeared in my feed. I had no way to report it as spam.
I would be happy so long as I knew that no stories would show up unless I specifically approve them. I’d also like to be able to report an item as being ‘not from me’. I had a case where a site posted something that I certainly hadn’t done, and it appeared in my feed. I had no way to report it as spam.
[...] Monday I argued that Facebook would soon change Beacon to provide a global opt-out feature. According to Business Week those changes may be announced as [...]