Why I won’t be quitting Facebook today

May 31, 2010  |  Consumerism, Social Networking and Bookmarking  |  Share  | 

Today is Facebook Suicide Day. What I suspect is a very small group of Facebook users plan to delete their accounts along with all their personal information residing on the social networking service. The reason they’re doing this is due to Facebook’s shifting privacy policies and what seems to be a personal problem with the company’s young CEO Mark Zuckerberg. I won’t be deleting anything today except a few press releases in my inbox. But that doesn’t mean I approve of Facebook’s user privacy policies either.

In the Web 2.0 echo-chamber  bad ideas spread fast. This time nodal sparks came from web celebs like entrepreneur Jason Calacanis and online broadcasting demigod Leo Laporte – both of which I have the utmost respect for, and both of which are proponents of the anti-Facebook movement.

I also respectively believe they’re taking things too far.

Calacanis is known for jumping to conclusions and he’s been wrong before. A great example of this was his Twitter attack on the New York Times’ David Pogue for daring to publish books on products from companies he writes about in the ‘Times. He attacked Pogue’s integrity and my opinion that he was wrong in doing so isn’t just an assertion – but listen to Pogue defend himself in TWiT episode 213 and decide for yourself.

Calacanis is clearly a principled guy who feels strongly about things. I’m the same and have made bad calls on that basis before too, so it would be hypocrisy for me to criticise him too harshly. But I believe he’s wrong about Facebook.

That Zuckerberg is an awkward kid with a track record of doucheness is undoubtable. He has been presented as such from all quarters and even the movie about the birth and rise of Facebook apparently casts him as ruthless and untrustworthy, amongst other things.

But so what? I’ve met some hard hitters in the tech space, including CEOs of large companies, and I can assure you that being ruthless is a common trait amongst almost all of them. Being untrustworthy, on the other hand, is a common trait with young men in general and Zuckerberg was very young indeed when he allegedly knifed business partners in the back. Raise your hand if you went through your teens without doing anything stupid… I didn’t think so.

If you’re going to quit Facebook because its leader is an arrogant know-it-all with weird preoccupations and because the company isn’t in full adoption of the open approach to privacy and technology in general then I would tender that you should be selling all your Apple products, deleting Windows off your PC and getting rid of all your gaming consoles. No more Kindle books, and you should probably sift through Google’s user agreements too. And good luck finding a mobile phone and network to use it on.

The fact is that Facebook is a great and useful service irrespective of its CEO being a douchebag (which may or may not be true). The privacy thing also isn’t as big a deal as some will tell you.

I’ve always been very wary of online privacy and have implemented advanced controls on my Facebook account since it was possible to do so. I have groups of users and I control who can see what. For example, I don’t let anyone except really close friends and family see most of the pictures and videos of my kids. Those settings have persisted and Facebook hasn’t changed them. My account is still as secure as it was this time last year.

The problem Facebook has is that it does privacy too well. It allows for advanced control of your personal content and I’m yet to see another service come close in terms of the granularity it allows. As with any feature in technology, if you don’t apply these controls then it’s you that has the problem, not Facebook. The user is still in control of what the public gets and what stays private in terms of specified user groups and networks.

Because it does this better than most, people expect Facebook to shine at privacy. They don’t care that Twitter is completely open because it’s always been that way, unless you have a locked account.

I am not suggesting that Facebook is faultless, however. The company certainly has played hard and fast with the information of people who do not lock down their information and accept the default settings. It also clearly plans to leverage its situation to make money. But I’m not sure those are malicious actions. God forbid anyone makes a profit, right?

My suggestion is that everyone takes a deep breath and calms down. Facebook is no more or less evil than any other company trying to drive a profit. We could pick out individuals from any organisation and form opinions of the company as a whole based on that one person – but this is shortsighted and infantile as far as I’m concerned. Zuckerberg is the baby and Facebook is the bathwater. Let’s not throw them both out – even if Mark has been peeing in the bath.

There are way more people involved in the creation and running of the company than just the CEO.

I’m all for open software and networks. I believe the guys over at the Diaspora project are on the right track with their plans for a “privacy aware, personally controlled, do-it-all distributed open source social network” and I can’t wait to see the fruits of their effort and funding. But for now Facebook is still a useful tool to me. I have no privacy concerns because I’ve taken the time to set things up properly. I don’t approve of everything the company does, but I could say the same for all the other providers whose products I use on a daily basis including Twitter, Sony, Apple, etcetera.

And, it bears repeating: if you accept the default settings then you can’t complain too loudly when they change. Lock it down like I did.

I had an enlightening discussion with science fiction author and digital rights activist Cory Doctorow in Croatia in 2008 where we discussed his abandonment of the Mac, amongst other things. Cory, who has a tattoo of a Mac on his right bicep, found himself at odds with Apple as a company in recent years and switched to Linux. I asked Cory how he was enjoying Ubuntu Linux, which he runs on a Lenovo laptop.

“I’m extremely impressed with Ubuntu,” he said. “But less impressed with Lenovo as a company.”

The problem? Lenovo’s user agreement for their laptops. The reality is that if you look at most technology companies closely enough you’ll find something to disapprove of. Sometimes you just need to consolidate that in terms of the advantages offered by the technology itself. Cory still uses Lenovo products. And I still use Facebook.

And no, I won’t be deleting my account today. Spare me the hype. I’d go so far as to say that most of the people who have been swept up in the anti-Facebook togetherness are ignorant as to exactly what it is they’re protesting.

But, if you do want to get rid of your Facebook account, check out Seppukoo – a service that aids you in your virtual suicide. And ra-ra for taking a stand.

 
  • http://twitter.com/rinbrand Rinus Brand

    While I do agree with the criticism Facebook is getting, I also won't be committing digital suicide for mostly the same reasons. In fact, my belief is the biggest mistake is to assume anything you put on there is private, regardless of settings. My issue with Facebook is that they lull you into believing that you CAN be private on the internet.

    Last week I went the other way. I have opened up every setting in Facebook to the public. That way, I'll never fool myself into thinking that anything I put on there isn't open to the world to see.

  • http://twitter.com/quincyntuli quincyntuli

    Well, I wont be quitting either. The reason for that is there is no good alternative for me.

    Secondly; I belong to a generation of guys that had a general aversion to spend any free time looking at a computer screen.

    It took the popularity of Facebook to convince these guys to give social media a try. Because of this, I am inundated by their invitations to services such as LinkedIn and Friendfeed.

    In other words, I sure look less of a geek these days thanks to a social movement that clearly Facebook has spear-headed.

    So until Disapora gains the kind of Impetus that at least Twitter has achieved, I am just going to stay put and pay closer attention to the next round of changes in privacy settings.

  • Peter

    Simon, you completely ignored the main reason why people are upset with Facebook. It has nothing to do with the actual settings the user sets in his FB profile (because they're great).

    It has everything to do with the fact that FB uses an opt-out system… not an opt-in! They first share your information and then you get the opportunity to fix it afterwards. Perfect example is their new Instant Personalization Pilot Program which was implemented around 22 April. The DEFAULT setting shared your information with third party websites, regardless of how strick your own FB settings were.

    Whenever you use any of those sites (which FB authorised), those 3rd party applications are given access to your profile automatically. You had no choice in the matter, initially.
    Yup, afterwards you can go to Application Settings and remove them and then block them individually, but the damage had already been done. Yes, you could untick the newly added Instant Personalization option but again, only do it afterwards.

    Microsoft's Docs, Yelp and Pandora form part of the Instant Personalization Program. If you use any of those apps, they are automatically granted access to your profile. Did the user know this? Of course not. Afterwards he just notices those apps were suddenly added to his Application list. No permission granted by the user at any point.
    This has nothing to do with the settings you set in your FB profile, it's FB's backend sharing agreements with those companies as part of the IP Program.

    However, with an opt-in system you would always get a warning and have to grant permission to share with 3rd party apps, therefore giving the user a chance not to share the info.

    You clearly missed the whole argument about the actual problem. Your own privacy settings about who sees what photo album was never the issue to begin with. They implement and wait for the backlash, instead of giving the user the option to opt-out before anything is implemented. It's just an approach to privacy which FB somehow conveniently ignores.

    As for FB's latest changes to calm the users down, it doesn't address the issue at all (since the kept it opt-out). All they did was make it more convenient for end-users to simplify their own privacy settings. That was never the problem.

  • http://www.letstalkgeek.net Tim Haak

    The issue with facebook is not that they are trying to make money or that that they want the information open.

    Its that initially the promised to keep the information private. Which they needed to do get people to start using them.

    Now times have moved on and they are wanting to make the information public. The correct method would be to say all people joining from now on by default your information is now public and all current users you may now choose to make what was private previously public.

    Instead they went and made information of users that was private public. Yes you can go and change your setting and make it private. you as someone with the knowledge you have and awareness of whats going on have.

    The problem comes in with people who don't.

    As you said they are a company making money and it is there system which they can do what ever they want with it.

    Though as users we have the write to get upset when they break promises to us.

  • http://www.simon.co.za/ Simon

    No, actually I didn't miss that. You'll find that the access you speak of is only to top-level profile information used for statistics.

    So yes – Facebook has allowed access to information like my religion and favourite TV shows. And I don't care. The pics of my kids and other information that I really care about it still safe.

    Also, you're listing your problem with Facebook. I'm not sure everyone voicing a disapproval is on the same page.

    The opt-out vs. opt-in discussion appears sound at first until you think about it. You have opted in to the default settings by establishing your account. You can opt-out again by applying privacy settings.

  • http://www.simon.co.za/ Simon

    Your issue or everyone's issue? We already have two comments here stating different problems with Facebook, so clearly you and Peter aren't speaking for everyone.

  • Peter

    Thanks for the reply. Fair comment.

  • http://www.letstalkgeek.net Tim Haak

    Simon I think you may have to review your privacy settings as I can get to your 24 photo albums. Some with pictures of your children in them ? For instance the “Constructing the Knight's Rock Castle” album

  • http://securethink.blogspot.com abaranov

    Simon, you are wrong in your comment that Peter and Tim are on their own.

    The crux of the issue is really just that Facebook took information that was private and made it public or semi-public. You just can't do that!

    Twitter never gave any assurances that the tweets would be private. You knew from the start that everything you tweeted would be for all to see. The same with blogging. However, Facebook convinced users that their information was private and then opened it up for all to see. It was maybe not explicitly done but why have groups and friends when everyone can see you stuff anyway?

    Facebook saw how open people were on Twitter and wanted to replicate that across to their own network which is fair enough but they did it badly. They needed to go from opt-out to opt-in.

    Facebook is not alone here – Google made the same mistake with Buzz. But Google sorted out the Buzz privacy concerns in a matter of hours. Facebook privacy concerns are still there.

    I am one of those people who doesn't trust online social networks as far as I can throw them (0.008m) so I have never shared much on Facebook ever.

  • http://andrevanderschyff.za.net Andre van der Schyff

    Simon, great article. I've quit Facebook recently myself, largely due to their ever-evolving privacy policy which I do think is intentionally misleading. Yes, the privacy policy is quite clear in what is public by default, but not in that the default may change overnight and without notice. Many people trusted the defaults and had information exposed unintentionally each time it's changed.

    Over and above this though, I just don't find Facebook very appealing as a service anymore. I've reconnected with all my high school friends and very quickly realised why we've gone our seperate ways. I find the applications, wall posts, groups and rants largely annoying. Yes I might miss the occasional interesting blurb, but the amount of noise you have to endure in the process just does not make it much fun anymore.

    I won't be trying to convince others to do the same though. Many people live on Facebook and get a great deal of pleasure out of it. Personally I just didn't feel like checking and maintaining privacy policies on something that's 90% annoying in the first place anyway.

  • http://www.letstalkgeek.net Tim Haak

    Simon I think you may have to review your privacy settings as I can get to your 24 photo albums. Some with pictures of your children in them ? For instance the “Constructing the Knight's Rock Castle” album etc

    Just putting this at the top as think it gets lost where it was

  • http://www.simon.co.za/ Simon

    No. Those are public photos. I said *some* pics. Not all. Nice try though.

  • http://www.simon.co.za/ Simon

    No. Those are public photos. I said *some* pics. Not all.

  • http://www.letstalkgeek.net Tim Haak

    Just checking in case they weren't supposed to be shared

  • http://www.simon.co.za/ Simon

    I didn't say they were on their own. I said they presented two different problems with Facebook privacy and don't speak for everyone.

  • http://www.simon.co.za/ Simon

    Thanks for the concern =)

  • http://www.letstalkgeek.net Tim Haak

    Pleasure :)

  • ongopotse

    I was ready to jump of my shack (eish), but then I realise that, 30 minutes of reading the Facebook Manifesto has saved me, loss of interesting friends on Facebook. Yes, Mark is a douchebag, but so is accepting everything as gospel, online. A bit of reading and changing settings is all it took….Thanx mate

  • http://www.discountbootsonsale.co.uk ugg boots

    The post of content is very interesting and exciting. I learned a lot from here.The content from simple to complex, so all of you can come in . No matter you want to see what can be found.By the way ,there are some websites is also very wonderful,you can go and see.such as ajf 13