“Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg told a live audience yesterday that if he were to create Facebook again today, user information would by default be public”. That’s Marshall Kirkpatrick’s interpretation of Mark Zuckerberg’s comments in an interview with Mike Arrington at yesterday’s Crunchies event. While I’m a little hesitant about drawing a similar conclusion, the question of a user’s privacy rights is still being discussed weeks after Facebook rolled out their new privacy settings. The reason it’s still being discussed is that users no longer have complete control of their information, something that will continue to be a point of contention until resolved.
When Facebook changed their privacy settings, they also forced users to make more information completely public. What “public” actually means is not straight forward. Take for instance the following comment on Kirkpatrick’s article yesterday:
As a person who is being stalked for being an innocent bystander in a child custody case, I can tell you that losing my choices over what is searchable or not is huge. I have nothing to hide nor be ashamed of but the loss of choice for my privacy has hit home in a poignant manner.
Deanna McNeil, who originally posted the comment, isn’t completely accurate in regards to not having control “over what is searchable or not”. In fact there are still search privacy settings which allow you control who you are visible to. While there is still a privacy loophole which we highlighted last week, it’s extremely difficult for someone to access your data if you configure your privacy settings properly.
While the information is still not easy to access, as Marshall Kirkpatrick rightly points out:
Your name, profile picture, gender, current city, networks, Friends List, and all the pages you subscribe to are now publicly available information on Facebook.
If the world was black and white, Marshall Kirkpatrick’s statement would be 100% right. The fact that a grey area exists in the first place is unfortunate. Users should have 100% complete control over their data. Taken to the extreme, users should be able to flip a switch and turn off the visibility of all identity data first accessed by a third-party when they visited a Connect-enabled website or Facebook application.
Facebook’s perspective that the “world is becoming more open” is somewhat of a cop out. Yesterday, Mark Zuckerberg made the following statement to Mike Arrington and the entire Crunchies audience:
People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people. That social norm is just something that has evolved over time.
We view it as our role in the system to constantly be innovating and be updating what our system is to reflect what the current social norms are.
User privacy settings should theoretically reflect the ongoing societal shift without Facebook making any changes whatsoever. If users truly want to share more information with the world, they will. All information shared by users should be at their discretion. If Facebook wishes to change their service to make information public by default, that’s fine, but users should still have complete control. While you probably shouldn’t publish content on the web that you don’t want to be visible, Facebook’s privacy settings enabled you to control your identity content visibility around the web, making the privacy settings a tool of empowerment.
When Facebook decided that they would start making these decisions on behalf of users, they crossed the line. Facebook doesn’t need to update their system to “reflect what the current social norms are”. Instead, Facebook should give users complete control of their privacy and as a result, user settings in aggregate will effectively “reflect what the current social norms are”. Simplifying a system which gives users complete control of their privacy isn’t easy but the value of such a system is priceless and for Facebook it’s necessary.
![[Inside Social Apps 2012]](http://www.allfacebook.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/allfacebook2/images/ISA2012_336x100_F_RegisterNow.gif)
![[AllFacebook Stats: Facebook Analytics for Your Business]](http://www.allfacebook.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/allfacebook2/images/stpro_allfacebookstats.gif)
![[How can Facebook change your business?]](http://www.allfacebook.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/allfacebook2/images/FMB_A_MAY2011_336x100_F.gif)
Baloney. No one is forced to use facebook. If you don't want to have your info available for public consumption, then why are you choosing to subscribe to a social network?
Comment by RG — January 10, 2010 @ 3:08 pm
Right on. My sentiments exactly!
"When Facebook decided that they would start making these decisions on behalf of users, they crossed the line. Facebook doesn’t need to update their system to “reflect what the current social norms are”. Instead, Facebook should give users complete control of their privacy and as a result, user settings in aggregate will effectively “reflect what the current social norms are”. Simplifying a system which gives users complete control of their privacy isn’t easy but the value of such a system is priceless and for Facebook it’s necessary."
Comment by Nathan Stephens — January 10, 2010 @ 3:08 pm
Agreed-not for them to decide what we share
Comment by Facebook User — January 10, 2010 @ 3:12 pm
Exactly. Why do they keep making the same mistake over and over again? Why is the incentive to control/access/sell client data more important than building trust with their primary customers for a company which, in the long run, will certainly be more of an identity provider than anything else. It just doesn't make sense – the minute people stop using their real information on fb they're screwed. I don't get what they're thinking. Really.
Comment by Tobias Schwarz — January 10, 2010 @ 3:48 pm
Kudos! Thank you for a great article!
Actually, Facebook no longer “reflect what the current social norms are”. They are actively pushing their own norms onto their members, who never asked for this. Why? Probably just to have the stream filled with more content.
To Facebook, the stream is probably just seen as a profit-generating stream of "noise", or "production". To the members, this noise is bits and pieces of their real lives. Some of it they might want to share with everyone. Some of it, they want to reserve for their trusted friends in life. Lots and lots of private information is now public, and many inexperienced users do not even grasp what has actually happened, or the extent of the possible damage it could mean to their personal lives.
It is my firm belief that in the long run, Facebook will generate more profits by listening to and working with the users in this matter, instead of working against their best interests.
Kris
Comment by Kris — January 10, 2010 @ 4:09 pm
Exactly right. Zuck speaks as if this is the result of a truly free market in social "norms". But Facebook built itself up on the notion of privacy, amassing tons of personal data, then pulled a bait and switch by forcing to public many types of information that could be controlled previously, and by strongly guiding people into new defaults that are more public. The network effects (virtual monopoly among the mainstream), the proliferation of single sign-on with Facebook Connect, and the ongoing non-portability of contributed data skew people’s incentives via lock-in. Users need *full* (and easy) control.
Comment by Logical Extremes — January 10, 2010 @ 4:14 pm
Facebook will FAIL from their arrogance. As implications of loss of privacy emerge from incidents and publicity, many users will restrict and withhold usage. The variable Facebook has not considered is the NON-Facebook users who were apprehensive before and may impact family users. How many parents will get concerned with risks and have their kids get off, or never allow them to join? How many husbands will say to their wives, this is not cool now.. get off that thing.. The more the slippery side of APPS creates incidents from all the information from users they may harvest and keep on completely separate servers to use in who knows what ways, people will realize deleting something from facebook, in know way insures it is gone.
Comment by Larry — January 10, 2010 @ 4:29 pm
@Tobias: it's easy.
We users are not their "primary customers". We are their "product offering". Sponsors are their primary customers, and they want free shared data to extract commercial trends.
Comment by Facebook User — January 10, 2010 @ 4:56 pm
@Luigi Trovato,
you're right – that's the obvious explanation. It just doesn't make sense if fb has a strategy beyond the end of 2012. We're going to see a repeat of the 1990s. AOL was a close platform, then it was opened up. The same thing will happen to fb, in fact, fb is already opening itself up. The product core is an identity service – the world's biggest phone book. Real people, real data. If you don't protect that, you're gone. FB should be at the forefront of every date protection initiative on the planet, they should relocate their servers to the country with the strictest privacy rehgulation on the planet. They should give people more, not less means to remain private – then, and *only* then will they share more. I get a feeling, fb hast lost its vision.
Comment by Tobias Schwarz — January 10, 2010 @ 6:00 pm
Guess what people – Facebook is not your site. It is their own site, and they can decide what to do with it. You choose to put information onto Facebook; there is absolutely no one forcing you to use it. If you don't want that information shared, don't put it out there or don't use the site. It's that simple.
Comment by Charles Boyung — January 10, 2010 @ 6:09 pm
Zuckerberg is full of shit. What FB has done is provide internet hustlers and spammers with a bonanza. I’m told that many FB users now get 25 to 50 spam emails a day that are directly related to the change of the FB privacy policy.
Comment by zato — January 10, 2010 @ 8:26 pm
I keep hearing, don’t use it if you dont want information shared. The terms changed and Facebook is now selling that the social networking world has changed so deal with it.. People posted all the information under different understanding of privacy and it seems deleting what you now might not want public, isn’t guaranteed to be gone. How many Apps with access to all the info have been harvesting it and keeping copies in other places? Is there a verified system between facebook and their associate App publishers to delete all things down the precarious stream? I have used the Developers test site (Status.get) to pull up my old status messages that I deleted from my wall.. Why are they there? Trust issues with facebook are becoming more and more reasonable to question. Are your iPhone contact’s phone numbers now being shared with their new sync feature?? Are they gathering non-facebook users emails from facebook users syncing contacts? This is the problem, no one would put it past them on their mission to remain above Tweeter and gain more value.
Comment by Larry — January 10, 2010 @ 11:23 pm
Those of you who are saying “You can choose not to put your info on Facebook” are a little out of touch. Technically you are right, we can all refuse to use Facebook. But the reality is that Facebook has reached a social critical mass. Everybody and their mother (literally) is on Facebook. Social groups are more dependent on it now.
If you don’t realize what that means, it means there are some social groups that are run only through Facebook now in terms of their event announcements and group communications. Some new groups have never existed outside of Facebook – they do not even have a list of their members’ emails or phone numbers! If you want to be part of one of these groups, you have a choice: Join Facebook, or create administrative hassle for the group, or be unable to join the group.
I myself am part of one valued recreational group whose primary communications are through Facebook. I wish they weren’t, but Facebook is easy to administer, and people are busy. If I leave Facebook, I think they will send me an email, but it certainly won’t be the norm for them and I may get wind of things later than other people.
Also because of the rich and constant social communications that people are now addicted to on the site, Facebook has realized that it has a lot of people by the nuts in this way, and is attempting to exploit this dependency as far as possible, obviously. If you HAVE to join Facebook for 3 or 4 different reasons now, mostly because all your best friends are on it, then Facebook knows they can do whatever they want and you will just have to go along or lose your connections to your real-world relationships. And don’t you forget that this peer pressure to be inside Facebook, and the cost of being outside Facebook, is a thousand times greater if you are a student. “You don’t have to be on Facebook” is a weak argument in the face of that, even if it is correct.
One real-world friend didn’t want to join Facebook and was a longtime holdout. I told her she was fine, unlike her other friends I didn’t feel anyone should feel it necessary to join Facebook. But a few weeks ago she said she was feeling increasingly out of touch due to all of the events and updates that were only being made through Facebook. The other day, I got a friend request from her. She, too, had been assimilated.
Don’t think you can just say “you have a choice.” It is not that simple anymore.
Personally, I too hope Facebook fails as a consequence of not following actual social norms. In the real world we like to keep friend groups apart from each other, and we do not put one’s personal address book into the hands of everyone we know and a bunch of people we don’t know.
Comment by John — January 10, 2010 @ 11:41 pm
"Zuckerberg is full of shit." I would tend to agree with that one
Comment by Facebook User — January 11, 2010 @ 2:38 am
@Charles,
“It’s that simple.”
No, I’m afraid it’s not that simple. Of course, facebook is an American corporation, a for-profit entity that owns the technical infrastructure and currently forces users from all over the world to be bound by US-based TOS (and Canadian, soon), but the infrastructure itself is pointless without the content and interaction happening on it. Thus, in a very real way, facebook is the users’ site, and simply stopping to use it is not an alternative if there is social or technical lock in. Have a look at the institutional research of Albert Hirschman, if you’re interested.
Facebook’s decision to let users participate in the governing decisions is an explicit recognition of the emergent social structure that currently defies easy classification. But you clearly cannot change your social network like you can change your phone provider. At the very least, fb is providing a service that will soon be considered public infrastructure and will likely see according regulation.
Comment by Tobias Schwarz — January 11, 2010 @ 2:30 am
FB most definitely has the right to make changes to their website and their policies — but they also have a social responsibility to keep users safe and maintain their trust in the brand.
I agree with @john that participation in FB is almost mandatory in many social circles. Not only is it easier than email to converse with a large group of people, but it also allows for so many different applications unavailable with traditional email.
I have simply chosen to keep informed on all changes and on top of my privacy settings. At every given opportunity I choose to share information and family photos with only my "friends" on FB and not the public. I may be kidding myself, but for now that is good enough for me. -Tara
Comment by Tara Geissinger — January 11, 2010 @ 5:59 am
Nick, well said!
@Charles, that might be true if Facebook were created yesterday with 0 users. However, the 350 million people who were using Facebook when the changes took place signed up with the knowledge that they could choose their privacy settings. They no longer have all of those same setting options. Much of their privacy has been stripped away.
Add this to the fact that you can't have a fake persona to be anonymous on Facebook (without running the risk of violating their TOS) and you're left with few TRUE privacy options.
Facebook is a leader is social media and will continue to be a leader if and only if it allows its users to have a wide range of choices when it comes to privacy.
Comment by Dayngr — January 11, 2010 @ 9:21 am
Are there any groups on fb protesting for this?
Comment by ts — January 11, 2010 @ 9:33 am
Facebook is most certainly a corporation with ownership belonging to Mark Zuckerberg. However, that should not be used as a justification to do “carte blanche” with those that share their information. When you think about it, we are the content providers of this network.
If you look at other relationships between websites and those that provide content, this kind of thing would not happen. For example, if Yahoo started to redistributing all the AP reports to unauthorized sites, I don’t think Tom Curley (President and CEO of The Associated Press) would like that. In fact, the AP has been very quick to assert its authority when AP reports have appeared on blogs.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the tactics surrounding the content providers have often been sleazy (especially those in the music industry). I mean, when you look at what has happened with Youtube and WMG. I think there should be some common sense when it comes to fair use. Nonetheless, I think that the Facebook users should have control over the content that they provide and be able to negotiate (select the appropriate options for them) the way other content providers do.
As a new Facebook user, I am not familiar with the previous version and how it compares to the current setup. I will admit that I am not using it to its fullest capacity for several reasons. I have heard about the possible security issues surrounding applications. So far, I have ignored every one of them. It’s like when people forward e-mails to you because they think they’re cute. But in reality, they could be spreading a virus. Another point of concern is my various circle of family and friends. Everyday in my newsfeed, I see whay User A said about User B, but I don’t know any of these people. The only reason it appears is because they have a mutual friend that I know. Likewise, the friends I went to school with don’t need to see other various conversations. I have a few business contacts but have not added anymore because of this. Yes, I can send private messages, but if I’m going to do that, I might as well not use Facebook and send a regular e-mail.
Comment by David — January 11, 2010 @ 8:37 am
Had he done this we would probably not have heard of Facebook today:
“Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg told a live audience yesterday that if he were to create Facebook again today, user information would by default be public”.
I know it's hard work to please a public that already feels themselves losing their grip on their privacy, but you still have to try.
Comment by Joe Hackman — January 12, 2010 @ 3:48 am
@everyone here it seems like -
Sorry, but it really IS that simple. You don't want your data shared publicly on the internet, don't post it on the internet. Okay, some of you make the case that you NEED to use Facebook, for whatever [very questionable] reasons. There is still nothing forcing you to post all sorts of private details on Facebook. If you really, truly NEED (yeah right) to join an organization that only exists on Facebook (again, yeah right) then you can just have a Facebook account with minimal information. No one is forcing you to post every one of your innermost desires and your deepest, darkest secrets or every one of your stupid "everyone lean in" pictures on Facebook.
Facebook changing their default privacy settings does nothing to change the fact that you should never be posting something on the internet no matter what if you do not want it to be public. Posting it to just your "friends" is not going to prevent it from going public, especially since most people on Facebook have MANY more "friends" there than people they actually know and have met in person, let alone their actual friends. I'm sorry, but it is impossible for someone to have 800+ friends in real life – you would spend two people's entire lifetimes (at least) just keeping up with said friends.
Comment by Charles Boyung — January 12, 2010 @ 9:43 am
Its a wonder he would even say such a thing. His user information is set to private. I believe the young man just has "mood" fluctuations
Comment by hd — January 12, 2010 @ 8:54 pm
How dare Facebook!!! Are they crazy??? Apparently so!!!
Comment by upset FB user — January 13, 2010 @ 4:08 pm
@hd – are you talking about me? Doesn't the fact that my info is private just prove that people are freaking out about this too much? You clearly can still have your information as private as you want it.
Comment by Charles Boyung — January 13, 2010 @ 5:37 pm
I am a relatively new member to Facebook. I would say that while it's true we all choose to join voluntarily, until you actually sign up and begin to use FB, you only begin to understand what happens to your information.
When I received my first application invitation, I thought…okay, well that's nice. Then you click on it and receive the following message:
"Allowing (Fill in the blank) access will let it pull your profile information, photos, your friends' info, and other content that it requires to work."
That didn't sound like something that I should do so I have been ignoring these. I don't mind staying in touch with people and perhaps I will be more comfortable to post more of my own thoughts on my wall as I currently don't have much to say or know how I will utilize it.
Before I joined Facebook, I didn't realize the scope of the information that it would share to make an application work. Also, you may have certain settings to "just friends" or "only me" but who's to say that it couldn't be shared outside those settings anyway? Like with e-mail, you can share your e-mail with just one person privately and then all of a sudden, you're on someone's "forward list" where they display everyone's e-mail to the entire group.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject.
Comment by David — January 14, 2010 @ 3:43 am
@Charles. Ok, sure that's all true, but because of the "recent activity" loophole, people can still see info that they are not friends with via a mutual friend. Until THAT feature is sorted, Facebook is now nothing but a distant memory to me. I won't even bring up the fact that social networking as a collective, has mutated everyone into socially stunted individuals who really cannot see the line between what's respectful and what has become almost stalker-esque.
I think I'll choose the real world and ACTUAL, honest to goodness personal interaction the old fashioned way.
Comment by Some Guy — January 15, 2010 @ 10:03 am
Facebook does not owe privacy to its users. They don't pay for the service and the policy states that it can change at any time. It sounds naive and entitled to expect them to keep your data private when their very business is about monetizing your content. That's why Facebook is free.
Comment by Justin Kistner — January 18, 2010 @ 12:46 pm
Mark Zuckerberg is an arrogant cock, and is just all about marketing and selling more ways for advertisers to get information about you. The pages you are a fan of are now available on Google searches and for example can reveal WAY MORE than you would want to to a stranger. Previously we COULD protect that information, and now we cannot – but when we joined these groups or fan pages, we were able to say who could see what we liked/didn’t like. I am seriously thinking of leaving FB over the shit they have pulled on the privacy settings, the crappy news feed that puts things from 5 days ago randomly into the news feed – it is just such shit now I cannot believe it. The fact that you can no longer keep certain kinds of stories (ie no ‘who I just became friends with’ or ‘what did I just become a fan of’ or ‘what did I just comment on) completely off your wall is really really shite, and makes everyone now a spammer to other’s walls. It discourages in fact interaction on the site. Bite me MZ.
Comment by poppy but — January 19, 2010 @ 3:48 pm
I want & deserve my privacy settings back! I can't believe they haven't corrected this! Or ever removed the previous settings in the first place! I am so incredibly unbelievably looking forward to an update on this that says we can have our privacy back!!! Thanks for the good work AllFacebook & keep us informed!
Comment by ATP — January 21, 2010 @ 11:47 am
There’re be some complaints, and Facebook will “compromise” so that they appear to be sensitive to their users, but we users have still ended up accepting less privacy. Patiently and systematically, they’ll chip it away. Like subjects in a Stanley Milgram experiment, the users have accepted things so far, so how can they not justify going just a little bit more?
Comment by zhuzhiyan — April 23, 2010 @ 6:51 am
wake up ___people____isn't it obvious____Mark Zuckerberg himself stated that HE WANTS to
DOMINATE the 'WORLD. _ugh, scary…. who need 'facebook, i don't and even if i did, i still
would not give him or his screwed up site that is totally disORGANIZED. set up in such a way
as to CONTROL and drive you crazy like __him and his staff. GO GET A LIFE with real people..
you will be happier, and not controlled….
Comment by jane — March 2, 2011 @ 12:03 am
Love is like the moon, when it does not increase, it decreases
Comment by Ugg Winter Boots — September 8, 2011 @ 2:17 am
Klein, for example, has plaid short sleeves shirts that look adorable on toddler.
Comment by Adizero Crazy Light — September 16, 2011 @ 8:39 pm
People who wear mulberry bags sale re very modern and stylish. mulberry alexa are that loved by many people all over the world.
Comment by Mulberry Bags — October 3, 2011 @ 11:07 pm
It features our signature Postman's Lock and has a soft brushed interior for the ultimate luxuriously-crafted touch.
Comment by mulberry uk — October 3, 2011 @ 11:08 pm
awesome information, terrific information for myself..
I desire for every person can take this information
most people use facebook but just a small number of people now depth feature of facebook. Gadget | Telephone Mobile
Comment by gadget | technology — November 16, 2011 @ 9:28 am