One of the less discussed aspects of Mark Zuckerberg’s interview at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View last week was a comment he mentioned about the impact that privacy settings have on engagement. While Facebook is known for providing a series of advanced tools for managing privacy, the company’s metrics have revealed that in the broad sense, less privacy settings results in increased engagement. This could explain some of the push for making information public by default. It could also explain the new embrace of Facebook Questions.
The Case Of India
Mark Zuckerberg explained an interesting phenomenon that the company realized when they expanded the site into new countries. As the company expanded globally, the only networks that were available in new countries, were the countries themselves. In other words, if you joined as a user in India, you became a member of the network “India”. In the U.S. however, users joined as members of Universities, companies, and other networks. While Facebook has since killed off “networks” as it pertains to privacy, networks were originally used as a way to limit what information users could access.
For example, if you attended Harvard University, other users at Harvard University had much of their profile information exposed to you by default. In India however, whenever a new user joined, they could view all other users in the entire country of India because there was only one network: India. According to Zuckerberg, this form of “open network” resulted in a dramatic increase in overall in engagement. In the U.S. however, engagement has decreased as a result of advanced privacy settings.
Privacy Settings Hurt The Site
While Mark Zuckerberg’s theory that the world is becoming more transparent may be a legitimate one, it’s also clear that the founder has other motives behind making information more public on the site. As someone who was sitting in the audience, it appeared as though this decreased level of engagement actually pained Zuckerberg or was at a minimum a point of concern. If users that have more public settings spend more time, that must mean that the world prefers to be more open, right?
Ultimately, the level of engagement on the site is the best metric of determining a user’s core desires, however I’m not quite sure that users believe that they want to be more public. Regardless, users in the United States, and other areas where privacy settings were much more restrictive, have been extremely vocal about maintaing their privacy settings. Facebook however is doing whatever they can to make more information public, as they appear to believe that making more information public will keep people on the site for longer periods of time.
They may be right, however this also contrasts the long-term vision that the future of Facebook is off of the site, as Mark Zuckerberg has repeatedly stated. Between the conflict of private versus public and on-site versus off-site usage, Facebook has a lot of internal conflicts that will need to be resolved as the company moves forward. In the meantime, users that want privacy will continue to have privacy for the most part and continue to grow less engaged, while the rest of the world opens up and increases their level of engagement on Facebook.
![[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)
I would not use Facebook if it didn't have the comprehensive privacy settings it has now. I want to be connected with my friends and family and it is a wonderful vehicle for that. I vehemently do not want to be more public.
Comment by Sharon — July 30, 2010 @ 6:42 am
We decide what we want to share. Privacy does not equal less engaged. It just means it is harder for your stalker to find you. Mark Z and his "more open" theory is a nice one, but we do not live in a world where everyone who wants to connect has good intentions. If users are "forced" into sharing, most will leave. We are not on the playground. We do not need someone telling us that we must give Jimmy some of our Jelly beans.
" Regardless, users in the United States, and other areas where privacy settings were much more restrictive, have been extremely vocal about maintaing their privacy settings.Facebook however is doing whatever they can to make more information public, as they appear to believe that making more information public will keep people on the site for longer periods of time." Wrong again..unless you want stalkers and angry exes to be the ones remaining on the site for more time. Isn't the whole point of Facebook so we can connect with FRIENDS and FAMILY and whoever we CHOOSE? Or do you wish for us to connect with everyone? Even those who may have less than friendly intentions?
Mark Z, if you believe in this philosophy, then accept every friend request that comes your way, make your information (ALL your information) Public. Perhaps a billboard with your family tree, address phone number ect? I love you, Zuckerberg, and I love Facebook, but you have GOT to allow people their privacy. If you don't, you will be killing a social network that we have all come to love. Please don't kill it, Mark.
Comment by Facebook User — July 30, 2010 @ 6:48 am
Nick, great article. This is a real Catch-22 for Zuck and Facebook. On the one hand, you have people begging for privacy, but on the other, people don't use/like/understand the privacy features they already have at their disposal! The numbers don't lie. Plus, every time Facebook adds just ONE more little privacy feature, they probably have to run 50,000 test cases to make sure it doesn't break all the other privacy settings.
Comment by Chris Bucchere — July 30, 2010 @ 6:51 am
My User ID and private info is none of Jimmy's business!! period!! Keep my private info Private!
Comment by Sadie — July 30, 2010 @ 8:55 am
I agree with Sadie, If I want someone having info, I will give it myself, I don't feel that's anyone elses place to give out my info! That's MY Business ONLY.
Comment by Kim — July 30, 2010 @ 8:58 am
As was stated above, I wouldn't use Facebook without the privacy controls. I engage less, not more, when the privacy controls are decreased. I wonder if the stats re: "users with more public settings spend more time on the site" are true across all age groups or skewed to one or two age groups.
Comment by Sue — July 30, 2010 @ 8:58 am
Being someone who's seriously had a stalker (via myspace), I'd like to say that I stopped using myspace due to their lack of decent privacy settings. If facebook forces me to go public, I will consider it a danger to me because of that specific person, and delete my account and never use the site again. Also, think about the fact that other countries and cultures have different views on privacy and freedom of speech laws that might not be compatible with using a social network with those kind of privacy settings.
Comment by Jenn — August 1, 2010 @ 10:57 am
I saw the interview, and that was almost ALL I remember from it….his general arrogance, and callousness.
What the user wants is really not that important or relevant to him, but whether it will increase revenue (increased engagement=increased ad revenue).
While I know the big Z is not in it for his health, if he pokes us in the eye too many times, he's WILL see engagement drop dramatically.
Facebook will end up joining myspace in the ranks of "formerly dominant" leaders in their field, as folks look for someone who WILL honor the users desire for meaningful/precise control of who sees what…
Google, are you listening???
Comment by kathy — August 1, 2010 @ 4:08 pm
Mark should go and verify the age of all accounts from India and he would be surprised to find a zillion accounts made by 5th graders acting as teens. And at that age, they freaking have no idea what privacy settings are about and how it can hurt them.
Comment by Pankaj C — August 1, 2010 @ 9:55 pm
Site admins who purport that their users want full information disclosure should first publicly publish their own personal information on the site. It's only fair.
Comment by Tom Ditmars — August 2, 2010 @ 1:00 pm
Hey Mark. Stop smoking crack. The people who make you money. The one's you exploit and never listen too want Privacy. Most profiles are private. Some completely some partially. Listen to your users. They are leaving Facebook the minute a Private better Utility Network arises and it will. But you can stretch out how long you are on top a bit longer if you ask people what they want from your site vs your arrogance top down viewpoints of disillusion.
Comment by Howie at Sky Pulse M — August 5, 2010 @ 9:01 am
Not a fan of facebook and am actively seeking a reasonable alternative to recommend to my friends and family.
Comment by prophetbob — January 31, 2011 @ 9:12 pm
I was very encouraged to find this site. I wanted to thank you for this special read. I definitely savored every little bit of it and I have bookmarked you to check out new stuff you post.
Animation Courses
Comment by brianmike99 — May 26, 2011 @ 5:08 am