Why I Never Embraced Facebook

A while back, it was part of my job to understand all the different social platforms as part of an effort to make EMC proficient at social media.

If it was out there, I investigated it.  Blogs.  Forums.  Second Life.  Twitter.  Yammer.  Ning.  You name it, I checked it out.

Some of these platforms made sense to me, others didn't.  Some I embraced (e.g communities, blogging, Twitter), others I largely stayed away from.

And Facebook was one of those that simply raised hairs on the back of my neck.

Now, it's pretty clear why I had that perception.

How I Look At Things

People describe me as a mix of technology, marketing, psychology and business models.  I can't help to consider things on all these levels when I encounter them -- it's instinctual. 

And given how quickly things move in this market, I usually try to see how they might evolve over time.  How will likely developments in technology change things?  How will business models evolve?   Sometimes I'm right in my guesses, other times I'm wrong.  But I can't help doing it.

The Inherent Tradeoff In Many Models

So many social media models out there involve an inherent transaction -- you tell them something about yourself, and you get something of value in return.

Consider this blog -- you can learn a lot about me (and my company, and my industry) if you read it frequently.  You can learn a lot about other people if you follow the comments. 

And, in return, I benefit from doing so.  I enjoy it for one thing, and my employer seems to think it's generally a good thing as well. 

At a fundamental level, it's a trade -- simple economics, albeit in a new domain.

The same thing applies to search engines such as Google.  I tell them what I'm looking for, they get the opportunity to monetize my preferences by serving me ads. You'll see the same generic sort of patterns in communities, forums, Twitter, etc.

Look Before You Leap

Understanding this fundamental trade is essential before embracing any new social media platform.  Not only the initial proposition, but how it might evolve over time.

My first experience happened early on when I joined LinkedIn.  My presence shortly resulted in getting bombarded with people looking for employment, or some sort of professional contact, not to mention an exponential increase in business-to-business email spam.

The trade wasn't working for me.  I backed off.

My Perceptions of Facebook

When I first encountered Facebook, I quickly realized the stakes of the inherent transaction had dramatically increased.

Basically, it goes this way: if you reveal a great deal about yourself: personality, likes, friends -- the quintessential "social graph" that every marketeer craves -- Facebook would help me greatly expand my social interactions online.

I could see how this might evolve -- the more I use it, the more Facebook would understand me and my preferences at a level that can't easily be achieved with traditional means.

This knowledge (multiplied by 400 million users!) is an incomprehensible economic bonanza for anyone trying to sell you stuff.  Marketeers spend many billions of dollars trying to understand their customers at progressively deeper and deeper levels.

And, given widespread adoption of Facebook, there's no way I could see their management resisting the temptation to monetize my preferences on the social web.  Or any other management team, for that matter.

This is not to criticize Facebook, or any other for-profit enterprise that does something similar.  It's simply business, folks, and you can choose to play or not as you see fit.

Thinking Honestly About Privacy

BTW, I agree with many who say that -- generally speaking -- there is no real privacy on the internet.  Unless you personally take steps to guard your privacy, there's just too much economic incentive for various platforms and companies to monetize what they can find out about you.

As a result, I personally wanted very little to do with Facebook, or any other platform that uses a similar model.  Despite (a) what everyone else was doing, and (b) Facebook management's efforts to mollify people, I tended to see it for what it was -- a business model built on sharing (and monetizing) my personal activities and preferences.

As a consumer, I decided not to play.  It was a personal choice, and mine alone.

Fast Forward

Facebook's (and Google's) privacy policies are very much in the news these days.  I'm not surprised, are you?  Sure, they've got a heck of a PR challenge on their hands, but -- more fundamentally -- they've got more of a business model challenge on their hands.

People are realizing that disclosing their activities, preferences, social acquaintances, etc. has incredible economic value.  It's an enticing honey pot that smart business people just won't be able to keep their hands off.

Some may argue that it's the role of government to set appropriate boundaries, and enforce compliance.

I'd like to think that would be enough, but I know in my heart that we all will have to enter into these new forms of  "transactions" with eyes open as to their ultimate motivations and potential consequences.

You buy a house with a 30-year mortgage, you're committed for the long term. 

You embrace a social platform like Facebook, you're also committed for the long term, but in a very different way.

What say you?

Comments

[Cxi]

I wrote a lengthy response covering the pro's and con's of the ordeal and offering a succinct clause and reasoning behind why I use facebook. However in the interest of full-disclosure.. the internet took it upon itself to refresh the browser blowing away my comment

So end result, I think it important that you not only embrace facebook within the comfort and interest you'd like, but for you to also join my Farm, Cafe and Mafia... It is after all in the best interest of the community.

:)

[twitter.com/_se7en]

I chose to stay away from Facebook for the same reasons. Mostly because I just didn't want people to find me! With that I will now return to my secret underground bunker protected by my robot ninja army.

[Simona]

I've migrated all my content over to www.folkdirect.com - I only share with those I choose and I can hide/show whatever I want. It's built on strong privacy controls (with no silly applications that steal your info!)

[Chuck Hollis]

"secret underground bunker" ... too funny!

[Kim Wisniewski]

Hey Chuck, you might like to philosophise around this one
http://joindiaspora.com/

"the privacy aware, personally controlled, do-it-all distributed open source social network"
Kim

[Edwards]

I see it as a give and take. Possible target of marketing / lack of privacy vs. ease of sharing with others (place once and share with many in multiple modes .. news feeds, photos, etc...).

It is already acceptable for users that use gmail that an automated system will analyze their emails and present relevant ad's. Without exporting any data to marketers and leveraging automated system, I do not see why facebook cannot do the same.

Any other non-algorithmic use of the social graph could result in the pendulum of give and take be against the consumer which in turn result in attrition.

[John W]

"BTW, I agree with many who say that -- generally speaking -- there is no real privacy on the internet."

That, in my opinion, is because that We The Users have permitted that to happen. As citizens who are protected by the laws of our government We have done nothing to ensure that laws and rules are created and updated to guard on-line privacy as well as real-life privacy is guarded. Take for example the Electronic Communication Privacy Act -- it was written in the 1980s. It has an 80s view of the Internet and reasonable privacy of retained on-line communication. 6 months was an inordinately long amount of time for someone to keep email on a 3rd party server in the 80s.

What we really need is for people to care about their privacy again, not to accept the lack of privacy on the Internet as the de facto standard. That is only willfully allowing companies to continue their dubious pursuits with information that should be within our direct control, not turned into a commodity.

The allure is there to monetize the information, for certain. However, We have bee lazy about ensuring the legislation is in place to safeguard us or provide us recourse in the event of abuse or misuse of our information.

The Internet isn't a jokingly enigmatic alternate dimension in which we have no power or control. Being on the Internet isn't implicitly anonymous. However, We have permitted the monetization of our information with barely a finger lifted to put laws around it. For the most part, if many of these privacy infringements happened in real life with paper-based data, the lawsuits would be flying like flags on a bad play. But because we have largely ignored the privacy facet of this increasingly pervasive medium, we have left the doors open to interpretation by those who stand the most to gain.

I urge people to refuse to accept lack of privacy as the norm. It does not have to be that way.

[shiningarts]

As you all know, Internet and privacy are oxymoron. By going to internet, you know you are trading off your privacy for good. There are no differences between blog, email, Facebook, and whatsoever because internet is internet, period. Fundamentally, Private Cloud is a part of internet which can’t guarantee your privacy. You can only assume your privacy is safe as long as you are one step ahead of others who would like to break your electronical wall. Besides, since all sort of internet assumes that the benevolent society and nature of ours would safe keep the internet transmission, you will lose all of your ability to communicate through internet or your data could be lost when it stops at some point either it stems from Mother Nature or human behavior. So, if you are planning to use your Private Cloud for your disaster recovery, you are indeed a oxydisaster.

[Chuck Hollis]

Hi Shiningarts

With all due respect, I don't think you've kept current regarding the definitions and attributes associated with private clouds, and how they differ from public clouds.

In one sense, your statement is the logical equivalent of "you shouldn't fly in airplanes because they can't fly".

Unless a private cloud can provide the same assurances (or better) than traditional alternatives, they won't be successful.

Much in the way that an airplane that can't fly isn't very useful.

-- Chuck

[nate]

how about what does facebook's founder have to say about it ?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/14/facebook_trust_dumb/

"Loveable Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg called his first few thousand users "dumb fucks" for trusting him with their data, published IM transcripts show. Facebook hasn't disputed the authenticity of the transcript."

Myself I never liked it for similar reasons, I worked at another social network wannabe company and I saw the mentality behind it and it was so absurd I can't put it into words. Facebook I'm sure is similar, they just got lucky in a few areas. At one point the company was going to be an exclusive partner with Facebook for certain functionality, then facebook shit on them when they opened their APIs. People paniced, I laughed. Fortunately IT/Operations is a somewhat neutral territory. I don't have to give a crap what the company does or how they do it I just optimize the stuff so they can do it better.

I don't use twitter either, hate that too. I do blog on occasion it gives a place to vent, and gives a place to write out ideas where I can point people to since my thoughts can often be very in depth and it's easier to consume in written form. Though I wouldn't be blogging if my former co-workers hadn't pestered me to death to do it.
I do find value in LinkedIn though, basically in allowing me to keep track of people since I don't typically stay in touch with more than a few of the people I know.

And I've been hosting my own email for more than a decade, and I am very vigilant about what http cookies my browser stores. Been accepting those on a cookie-by-cookie basis for at least the last 5 years.

ranted a bit on the topic here, after a Mozilla developer suggested changing the default search engine away from google for privacy reasons.
http://www.techopsguys.com/2009/12/10/lesser-of-two-evils/

I recall hearing on more than one occasion the phrase "it's better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission" which seems to be the model a lot of these companies operate on when it comes to privacy. Enough people will get burned in time that I believe the value of privacy will go up again, though it may take a generation for it to happen. The story of the Oregon(?) girl who sent a topless picture of herself to her husband in Iraq or something only to have it splatted all over the web and even sent to people like her boss is a good example, all because of stupid security at the photo sharing site.

But by the time that happens we may of already witnessed the complete and total collapse of our economy and world governments, so it probably won't matter in any case.

[David Deans]

Chuck,

What surprised me was the amount of very personal info that people share on Facebook -- most apparently don't realize their comments are now public (via the search API). This site uses some common phrases to prove the point http://youropenbook.org

Refresh the page for other example phrase results.