Do Facebook Feeds Violate User Privacy?

Reuters is reporting that Facebook users are disturbed by new tracking features built into the site making it easier for users to keep up to date on their friend's profile changes:

Web social site Facebook hit by privacy protests - Yahoo! News

"Facebook.com, the No. 2 U.S. social network site that is quickly expanding beyond its college student base, has been met with a sudden privacy backlash by users after it made design changes this week.

By late on Wednesday, more than 500,000 of Facebook's 9.5 million members had signed an online petition calling for the company to back off a feature called "News Feed" that instantly notifies members when friends update their own sites."

While this may be viewed as a shocking privacy violation by a good chunk of the Facebook crowd, all it appears to do is make Facebook use more efficient. Rather than clicking on profile after profile to find updates, Facebook brings a list of updated profiles to users. How is this different from what RSS is used for today?

Facebook protest site, "A Day Without Facebook" makes the case for why this is a privacy violation:

"Before Feeds, it was already easy enough to stalk anyone at your school, and everyone on your friends list; but with the advent of Feeds, it is now nearly impossible not to be ?��Ǩ?�stalked?��Ǩ�� or to ?��Ǩ?�stalk?��Ǩ��

Without even trying an individual now knows the changing relationship status of individuals on their friends list, the new ?��Ǩ?�friendships?��Ǩ�� added by users, and the photos tagged by either a user or a user?��Ǩ�Ѣs friends."

So Facebook has provided easier access to information Facebook users are proactively contributing to a public web site? How has one's privacy been violated?

In June, I wrote about how this could be done for MySpace profiles using FeedYes and SingleStat.us. In fact, I'm sure many Facebook users were already automatically tracking changes to their friend's profiles using 3rd party tools.

Potential Effects on Ad Revenue

"A Day Without Facebook" is working to organize a September 12th boycott of the popular social networking site. The site suggests that Microsoft should back the boycott because Facebook's new feed system could hurt Microsoft's ad revenue:

"Microsoft and Facebook have recently entered an agreement for Microsoft to provide the advertising content for the Facebook network. The new Feeds advertise themselves as a way to have less clicking and searching. Clicking, searching, and opening multiple pages is the bread and butter of click-through advertising. By changing the delivery method ?��Ǩ�� Facebook has changed Microsoft?��Ǩ�Ѣs ability to make money."

I don't buy the lost ad revenue argument for a number of reasons:

If the changes hurt Microsoft's revenue, they're also hurting Facebook's. Generally, the publisher gets more than half of a click's value, so it actually would hurt Facebook more than Microsoft.
Feeds are similar to the Saved Search feature found on almost every real estate website in the world. I don't think anyone would argue that real estate sites would be better if you couldn't subscribe to what's changed since your last visit. Feeds make sites more usable (thus valuable) by allowing users to go directly to the content that interests them.

Facebook is in the process of working out the differences with their users through communications on their blog. Here is a link to Mark Zuckerberg's first response.

What do you think? Has Facebook gone too far by enabling easy access to friend's profile changes?

Ajay, thanks for the great explanation of the frustrations you're having with Facebook. There clearly is a big difference between having syndicatable content and an actual broadcast / push of updates.

To followup on Ajay's comments, another issue that lies under the surface of the privacy issue is the fundamental disconnect between the way Facebook Inc. believes its users "should" be using the site, and how people interact with it in the real world.

Facebook has, for most of its existence, been used as a sort of "living yearbook" (to use a phrase I saw somewhere else, and I apologize that I can't attribute it properly). Many people have on their Facebook list, in addition to their close "friends", people they went to high school with, people they went to summer camp with, people they were in some clubs with, and all sorts of other people who they've met, and they know, but wouldn't want alerted to everything they do. Facebook Inc. seems to think that people only use Facebook to communicate with their couple dozen or so "true friends", and if that were the case then the News Feeds issue would be much ado about nothing. But that's simply not the way the system is used, and I think a lot of people are up in arms over this basic failure to recognize what users want.

Not to mention, although things like changes to one's basic profile were readily accessible before, there are other bits information that were fairly obscure. For example, if someone has 200 friends, the addition of one more wouldn't ordinarily be picked up by all but the most hardcore "stalkers". Likewise, something you wrote on someone else's wall would only be seen by those who actively check their profile. To look at it from a personal perspective, if I leave a message on, say, my girlfriend's wall, the text of that message is immediately broadcast to every friend I have, regardless of whether a) they're interested enough to be regularly checking up on me, or b) they're even friends with my girlfriend in the first place.

Even more disconcerting from a privacy perspective, though, is the fact that the News Feeds not only note additions to your profile, but also highlight information that was removed. It used to be that if you put something up, and later felt it was in your interests to take it down (e.g., listing "getting high" as one of your interests), then that information was gone without a trace. But now, taking down that information would result in a News Feed item that would say something along the lines of, "Ed Kohler has removed 'getting high' as one of his interests". Information that would have been removed is now highlighted and archives, and this strikes me as a serious, serious problem.

Jay, thanks for the thorough insights into the implications of this change at Facebook. It certainly sounds like they overreached with this new feature based on your analysis.

I also think that they do not violate anybody's privacy. I think that those who are frustrated just lack self-confidence. C'mon guys. If some is REALLY private, you would tell just a few closest friends. Why don't you do it on the phone? Or over a cup of coffee? Real communication is much more awarding. And if you post something about your favourite band etc., do you think those who don't care will pay attention? I doubt it. And even if they do, why do YOU care about it?

Ideally, Facebook should let people have 2-3 levels of privacy - I agree with that. But after all, you are still free to choose whether you post something or not. Nobody's spying on you. You know what to expect. And you can'y deny that with the latest updates, Facebook save some time for those who check their friends' updates regularly.

Comments

1. Posted by: Ajay Kalia on September 7, 2006 10:29 AM:

For many of us on Facebook, the issue is not about privacy of information, it's about how that information is distributed.

Let's say I wanted to add "Lost" as a favorite TV show. In the past I would make the mundane change, and the 20 or so people who actively read my profile would know. Now EVERYONE knows. And they know it IMMEDIATELY. This would helpful if only my closest 20 friends were on my Facebook list, but I have over 300 people on my list - from roommates, to vague acquaintances from high school. And worse, I have to see all of THEIR mundane updates... I really don't care if the guy from my 11th grade physics class added Nickelback to his favorite bands.

And besides the annoyance factor, there are some things that I do NOT want broadcast to the world as a whole - my relationship status, who I'm sending messages to, friends I'm adding/dropping from my list. There's a difference between passively placing that information on my profile for those who want it, and unwillingly telling 300 people that I've just broken up with my girlfriend.

NewsFeed is a great idea, but we're given no say in who we feed, who feeds us, and what information is distributed. That's all that most of us want, and it's stunning that the mods never thought of implementing that feature.

Required fields marked with: *
Name*:

Email Address*:

URL:
Remember personal info?

Comments*:

HTML Tags you can use in your posts:
<b>Bold</b> = Bold
<i>Italicized</i> = Italicized
<a href="http://www.othersite.com">Link to Other Site</a> = Link to Other Site

Please keep comments on-topic. Contact authors or other commenters
directly for off-topic conversations.

Notify me of future comments via e-mail

Technology Evangelist Digest - Free Newsletter

Sign up for the free Technology Evangelist Digest to receive daily updates, editorials, and practical advice on emerging technology trends in hardware, software, webware, marketing and beyond.

Technology Evangelist Digest will keep you up to date on the technology trends that will help make you more productive and efficient both in business and your personal life.

Let's face it: If you made it to this line, you must have found something valuable on this page, right? Think about how cool it would be to have something free and interesting to read every day from Technology Evangelist by signing up today.

1. Fill in your email below,
2. Then click on the confirmation email you receive.
3. That's it. Your first Technology Evangelist Digest will arrive within 24 hours.