Facebook's About Face on Conversation

Let's recap a few things that have happened in the last couple of weeks with Facebook.

At the f8 developer's conference, Facebook told its users what they think about privacy, proclaiming a new age of openness and the default sharing of information previously restricted to a user's trusted network.

Pronouncements aren't conversation.

Unsurprisingly, people were offended -- starting with the early adopters and the influencers. Mainstream media jumped in the fray. They attempted to restart the conversation via an increasingly passionate stream of blog posts, tweets, and posts on Facebook itself. If you search for Facebook and select blogs, you will see what I mean.

Facebook didn't respond. No conversation.

Other parties attempted to speak up, including the mainstream media, privacy advocates, and congressmen. Facebook responded by talking past its users, issuing a string of security improvements -- but nothing related to privacy. At this point it looks like we're Facebook's product, not its customers.

Still no conversation.

Facebook calls an "all hands" Thursday staff meeting to field questions about privacy. Ironically, the meeting is held in secret. After the meeting, a terse email announces that the meeting had taken place. There are no details, no announcements, and nothing for end-users. European data protection authorities blast Facebook.

Still no conversation.

In the grand scheme of almost half a billion registered users, a few disgruntled geeks canceling their Facebook accounts doesn't add up to much. But how long will it be until Facebook's rank-and-file becomes frustrated with the company's refusal to converse? How did a company based on sharing an communication get to this point? Is there a way to get the parties talking -- before it's too late?

Comments

[StanFord]

I suspect that Facebook understands it's 400 million users better than we do. They are gambling that the majority of it's users don't care about their latest shenanigans.

But what's scarier is that Facebook can use it's God status to shape this debate (to the general public) anyway it chooses. Valeria this isn't about conversation to them. It's just a PR exercise. Sad because we want Facebook to be a Privacy role model, but no one asked Zuck if he wanted the job. I think we have his answer now.

[Danny Brown]

Sadly I have to agree with StanFord.

Unless Facebook upsets some really big sponsors or advertisers, then they'll pretty much continue to do what they want.

Perfect example are all the Facebook groups that jump up, get mad for a while, then simmer down and fade away.

If the inhabitants aren't really bothered, why should the landlords be?

[Stephen Denny]

I'm sure FB will make some sort of half-conciliatory gesture that will split the privacy pundit camp down the middle, ending the uproar.

I don't see FB as caring too much about our privacy - it isn't the business they're in. From a user's standpoint, the impact is clear: one should consciously think about their policies any time you post an update.

[Paul Isakson]

Very good questions at the end, Valeria. I share your concern and views on this:

http://paulisakson.typepad.com/planning/2010/05/what-the-facebook.html

I think StanFord, as did one of the comments on my post, hit it - Facebook is betting most people won't care, if they even notice. Facebook has become their primary way to stay up-to-date with their friends' and family's lives and there is no better alternative (yet). Plus, it's part of their daily routine. Leaving Facebook in some ways feels like you're beginning to breakup with your friends.

What's going to get interesting is when a real competitor to Facebook opens up. It will take a while for a shift to happen, but if Facebook doesn't change, it will happen.

As for getting the rank and file to act, I think we have to act. Those of us who are aware of what's going on need to help the unaware see the problems. As more people become concerned, some action will be forced. Might be a conversation. Might be a walkout. Either way, it's going to be very interesting to see how this all unfolds.

[Carolyn Ann]

There is a Facebook competitor in the works, Diaspora*: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/nyregion/12about.html. It's not out; heck, it's not even architected, never mind coded! But there's promise there.

Facebook is going to find itself in legislative hot water if it keeps up with the shenanigans and lack of communication. People are mad at authorities just about everywhere - I'm not sure how Facebook thinks it's going to escape that anger. Mind you, Mark Zuckerberg has had a strange, even hypocritical, definition of "privacy" all along. What he does: private. What you do: not.

For about a year I've been wondering when the various legislative bodies will stir themselves, and confront social networks. (I haven't wondered about Congress; the answer there is "never". Or as close as makes no difference.)

Facebook is willfully arrogant. They remind me of Microsoft way back when - all hubris and "we know best". When your competition doesn't actually exist, but can attract (significant) funding on a promise, and it promises to upset your entire business model, being so arrogant is probably not wise. But Mr Zuckerberg strikes me as too haughty to even think about that.

Carolyn Ann

[Jon Knight]

Hi Valeria,

Coming out of RSS lurker mode to pass this link to you:
http://www.quitfacebookday.com/

Truth is, there is a hefty backlash against the fb arrogance. Welcome to it.

The current line of thinking I'm finding is that folks will stay on fb until their friends leave. None of the folks I talk to are fb fans anymore - they're just there because their friends are. Most are wishing there was something else, some other place... I'm betting their wait for same will not be a long one.

Paul is right: We have to act. If we don't support fb's actions, why support fb at all? maybe our friends are still there because we are still there? or all we all just following more folks who follow more folks who follow...

Sometimes, someone has to choose to lead. We are, after all, not lemmings.

[Carolyn Ann]

Oops? http://www.macworld.com/article/151231/2010/05/facebook_europe.html?lsrc=nl_mwnws_h_crawl

:-)

[Anne Libby]

One of things I find interesting, and not getting a lot of play, is Mark Zuckerberg's age.

I haven't "done the math" to compare Microsoft's development by the time Bill Gates was 26, but different story. Early on, Microsoft faced off to clients who were corporate techies (not marketers.) They weren't working with a "product" (as Scott Hepburn so aptly points out) comprised of a half a billion members of the general public.

We learn via experience. To apply the "10-year rule" that has been bandied about, Mark may have had 10 years to develop his tech skills. But the kind of managerial and leadership skills that might support a skillful crisis management response? Not so much. (And I believe that a 10 year management career is a short one; there's plenty that takes more than 10 years to learn.)

This is not an excuse. Just an observation. I'm tied to FB right now due to community groups where we connect via FB, but I'm dialing back my involvement otherwise.

Thankfully, I have not used FB for my business. A cautionary tale, right?

[Valeria Maltoni]

@StandFord - from a user base standpoint, I think there are those who are not paying attention/thinking about it; those who have invested too much of their good content and are going to throw some more into it because the cost of switching it too high: starting over in another place; those who are keenly aware of what is going on and doing something about it. These last are the minority at the moment.

@Danny - well, I think the "habit" might drag some people down a road of disappointments. What I continue to wonder about is: are brands going to experience a backlash because of the platform?

@Stephen - they seem to be afflicted by the worst spin syndrome I've seen in recent time: they believe their own BS.

@Paul - awareness and education are two good steps in the right direction. A nice dose of reality for Mr. Zuckerberg and the team of spin doctors should be next. We're already seeing some of it coming out in the open. Want open? Let's start with the Facebook team.

@Carolyn Ann - my verdict has been never to trust Facebook from the very beginning. Plus, the interface is difficult to navigate and work with compared to other sites and networks. If you think about it, why on earth do you need a network with 400MM people to stay in touch with your family and friends? You don't. Today there are so many more options, it's not even funny. Put your family albums on your own blog and invite your family to co-create it with you. Done.

@Jon - I had seen that, thank you for reminding me of it. I've always considered my blog my home base and the rest of the networks as outposts to engage. Think about it, you can have much more search juice by putting your eggs in your own basket than you'd do by spreading yourself too thin on too many networks. My friends are in the real world: I meet as many as possible in person. That edges my bets on any one digital medium :)

@Carolyn Ann - these are the kind of things that make me miss Europe.

@Anne - I'm more inclined to believe HuffPo writer Aaron Greenspan when he writes that Facebook is a Ponzi scheme -- not of dollars and cents, but of people and sense and a reporter asking him if Facebook, Inc.'s CEO was a sociopath http://ow.ly/1LAun - having actually met one, I'm thinking that might be the case, given the path charted by the company.

[Jon Aston]

Valeria:

As usual, you are on the money.

I found this on the official Facebook page on Facebook.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/facebook-executive-answers-reader-questions/?hp

It's enough to make you puke really. And I know that's a vile expression. But jeez.

If you want another shocking example of how little they actually value conversation, go and read the comments related to this article, on their page.

[Anon]

It's too late.

[Peter]

" At this point it looks like we're Facebook's product, not its customers."

The paradigm at work here is not seller/customer.

If I had to pick a social construct that mirrors FB's relationship with its users it would be closer to one in which the user was a supplier to FB or a virtual citizen of FB (without any rights - human or otherwise).

I think there is something to learn from all three paradigms when it comes to understanding social media.

Peter

[Martha]

There is a easier way to embed a tweet http://media.twitter.com/blackbird-pie/ and for several ones http://bligter.com/embedtweets/
I thought it might be useful :-)
Cheers!

[Eric Tsai]

Valeria,
I'm not sure if you know this but now there is a website called OpenBook that exposes data from outside Facebook. I found out about this via Dan Sullivan

http://searchengineland.com/openbook-see-what-people-on-facebook-share-world-42139

I think besides education, we need to involve regulators as well. Still absorbing what's happening now, feel free to checkout http://youropenbook.org
and do a search for "cheat test" like what Dan said...Amazing...

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Jon - the amazing thing is that people wanted to believe and they're left with just each other to hang onto. Granted, many have brought up that the network is free. That still doesn't justify lack of disclosure and transparency.

@Peter - virtual citizen with no rights. Spooky. At one point I wrote about social media being like sharecropping. In a business transaction, when you pay a fee in exchange for a service, you have "rules" attached to it. Not so without a fee...

@Marthat - that was really easy to do, I copied it from Scott's post. Thank you for the tip.

@Eric - very interesting, and silly for anyone to think that what they share online would not come out in the open. Even direct tweets you should expect to be made public. With that in mind, perhaps more civility, respect, and restraint will become fashionable again?

[truestory]

If another corp did this, they would have to change their name to apple