How it became Facebook’s fault

K says:

08:59am | 20/05/10

You’re quite right. I was taken aback lately when on one of my friends’ pages I saw an indgnant message about a user unknown to anyone in town who had been adding (or trying to add) kids from the local community and had pictures of goups of kids from the area on his page. She was urging everyone to monitor who their kids were talking to. A quick glance at her children’s ages showed they were set as being much older than they were. Why? so they could be members despite being well under the Facebook age limit. As many may already know, this isn’t an isolated case. Why are we blaming Facebook for exposing our children to predators and simultaneously knowingly bending the requirements put in place by the site to protect them? Wake up people, this isn’t rocket science!

sumguy says:

10:07am | 20/05/10

the problem is not face book its all of the people that have in the last 4-5 years finally “found” the internet and are then shocked and outraged that if you give your info out to random people some of these people may abuse this info…
ive never been one for information sinks such as facebook but have friends that love to post all there info on many different social mediums off the top of my head i think the first real social networking site that was popular was livejournal. which is fine if you understand its not going away and dont mind managing all of the info so it does not get abused.. in short dont put anything on the net you dont the whole world to see and as in real life there are bad messed up people on line so be cautious who you befriend.

SD says:

10:36am | 20/05/10

You mention that Facebook deals in information – and for a profit.

You also mention that Facebook has “changed the goal posts” in terms of personal data usage.

These two points go a long way in explaining the recent backlash against the company.

Every time Facebook changes its privacy policy – there is a backlash. And fair enough too – how is it fair to agree to one set of terms, only to have another set forced upon you at a later date? Especially since many users have so much invested in the application – it’s pretty much blatant coercion. Couple this with a sly policy of ‘continued use equates to acceptance of terms’, publish the terms in another area, make the agreement some 5000 words long, and it is hardly surprising that users are complaining.

Sure – no money has changed hands directly – but each user pays through advertising, and very effective advertising too. If it didn’t work – then the estimated value of Facebook would be much, much less.

Essentially, Facebook has become greedy – and is trying to leverage its data bank for higher profits. And whilst you are right when suggesting that this is hardly surprising given the way the company is currently positioned – such claims are irrelevant – the situation is wrong (for the reasons above) whether it was expected by some or not. Facebook was never designed to be a profit machine – the current problem stems from attempts to monetise a product that first and foremost is a collection of private data, without introducing subscription fees.

Suckerberg knows that any attempt to directly charge for the service that Facebook offers would be a catastrophic failure. Hence – enter clandestine data mining and onselling to third parties. It’s the only option they have.

Z says:

10:38am | 20/05/10

As a journalist I wouldn’t expect you to understand concepts like privacy and integrity

Liz says:

10:57am | 20/05/10

The good, the bad and the ugly!

thinktank says:

11:03am | 20/05/10

“... I check my privacy settings every now and then to ensure they are ok…”

“...I have my privacy settings locked down as tight as I can get them - I’m sure I’ve missed something here and there, but I think I’ve got it pretty well in hand…”

Isn’t that the point?  I’m getting tired of having to check and re-check my privacy settings every couple of weeks.  And the options aren’t all in one spot.

Dognuts says:

11:16am | 20/05/10

Simple. We are accustomed to palming off blame to everyone but ourselves. This attitude has pervaded all aspects of society where we must choose to accept responsibility for our actions. Australians are world-class performers when it comes to this kind of thing; I mean, what the hell would we all do if we didn’t have Kevin, Tony, State Governemnts, Councils, Pokies, Beer, Ciggies, Colonel Sanders and company to blame for the worlds ills?

Facebook started out as a fun way to keep in touch with friends but seems to have descended (much like most things these days) into a vehicle to promote the cult of celebrity. My friends and I used to use it for a bit of a laugh and see who could write the most outlandish or controversial status update, but now its liberally laced with FIGJAM and parents using kids as a status symbol. I rarely use it these days, as I have rediscovered the use of telephones and face to face meetings (shock horror!!). It’s almost as if Facebook encourages us to be lazy, fair-weather friends and promotes a bogan-esque ‘look at me!!’ culture. As I said, used to be fun, but maybe not so much now….............

wk says:

11:28am | 20/05/10

I agree users have to take responsibility for themselves, but facebook have been EXTREMELY shifty in their recent changes. Most people are unaware that they have a boxed ticked in their privacy settings (in the applications section) that allows third parties to access their details… Even the most tech savvy people I know were caught out by this recently… Let alone older people, new internet users, young children etc.

TC says:

11:57am | 20/05/10

Privacy settings?? Are you kidding?

Why is it that you hit a button and you suddenly think youre secure. It’s moronic.

Im not sure whether facebook owns whatever you post. my understanding is that you give up ownership of whatever gets posted to facebook.

You wouldnt trust a government, a bank, lawyers, police, doctors or many other professionals with your personal information yet Mark Zuckerberg is seen as prince of security?

There are repeated occasions demonstrating that Zuckerberg’s ethics are highly questionable, not to mention his intelligence. Sure he has a product that makes him a fortune but does that make him someone you should trust? It’s entirely likely he stole the whole concept in the first place.

A “security” button is about as much use as a teddy bear.

Rossco says:

01:14pm | 20/05/10

Moral panic garbage basically.

beejay says:

01:46pm | 20/05/10

How about you don’t post anything you don’t want to be shared.  I’ve no personal information on mine, just messages from friends.  If some random person wants to look at pictures of me on holiday - well bully for them.

juice says:

01:48pm | 20/05/10

Blatantly apologist articles for Facebook aren’t the norm, so that’s a point of interest, but the HUGE point being missed by the author - and the “take responsibility for yourselves” crew - is that FB is going WELL out of its way to make securing your data as difficult as possible. I’m OK because I’ve got a clue, but there are a lot of users who haven’t, and it’s highly unethical for FB to do all it can to trick them (via their ever-changing privacy policies and ever-more-complicated privacy settings and horrendous defaults - into exposing their information.

Will I still use FB? Of course. Is my impression of it becoming more and more jaundiced? Of course. And that’s even with being across the whole startup back-story, which should give an indication of the true nature of the founder.

Andrew says:

02:09pm | 20/05/10

If FB are “just a forum” why does the Punch and other Australia media keep requesting comments from them?

Dude says:

02:18pm | 20/05/10

Its society blaming someone or anything for what most societies are, some are unhealthier than others. If it’s not some religious shit driving society mad, it’s the profit motive that holds up the mirror at which we recoil. I feel sorry for people who work in this medium. There was a time when news media was a benefit to humanity, now it’s just a lackey for its owners. Its lucky fb is rich, powerful and popular enough to withstand the loser news media’s paranoia. It’s pitty more people in society weren’t educated enough to know the difference.

Simonious says:

02:39pm | 20/05/10

I think users really need to understand what they mean by sharing information with Third parties.  Yesterday a friend in the US sent me a message about a site called http://www.spokeo.com/ this comapany scans social networking sites for data and is building some scary profiles of people in the US (wont be long before it comes here) This information can be subscribed to by other companies for targetted marketing purposes. Click on the link and see for yourself. Type in say john Smith and you will be presented with a list of all John Smith’s across America that they built a profile on. their locations are flagged on a map of the US and clicking on their name will give you details like their Address, Phone number, Spouse and kids names as well as others residing at the address. You can se their interests and hobbies, details about the home they live in ( like if it has cetral heating or Air Con) and that is just the start. The scary part is that you dont even have to be a member to see this info. Members can see a whole range of financial info on the company as well as credit ratings, income estimates etc etc.

They are getting this information freely off the web from stuff people make avaialble on social netowrking sites. Go check it out. If that doesnt make some people jump to action then we really cant help them.

cate swannell says:

02:42pm | 20/05/10

spot on. don’t want your private details available to the world? get off the worldwide web, you idiot. i am a recent convert to FB having hated it for a long time because it’s essentially high school all over again. once you realise that however, it’s controllable. i wish people would just take responsibility for their actions and stop treating Facebook like it was a sandpit and not what it is and always has been - an open public forum run by a profit-making organisation.

Lorraine says:

03:30pm | 20/05/10

Any site which will not allow you to unsubscribe is not worth being part of, but each and every person who releases private and personal details on Facebook is responsible for their own actions…. tough but true!

Seth Brundle says:

04:30pm | 20/05/10

You mean to tell me that there are people out there who use their REAL names and personal information on Facebook?  Thats just asking for trouble

Dan Lewis says:

05:10pm | 20/05/10

People who effectively surrender their privacy have no right to moan and bitch later when they discover….That they have no privacy.

What were you people thinking, uploading your entire lifestyle to a website?

Moreover, the website was free. What did you think was the revenue model?

Andrew says:

01:17pm | 21/05/10

Leo, you have completely missed the point of privacy laws… There is an expectation that we will at some stage need to hand our private information over to a company for the company to provide us a service, be it a bank which needs to know where to send statements or a site like facebook.

Now you would be pretty pissed at me if you gave me your full name, phone number and address so that I would know how to contact you so we could arrange a car pool to work in the morning, and I then sold those details to the mafia. It’s the exact same sort of thing, we give facebook certain details in accordance to it’s privacy agreements. We expect facebook to honour those agreement, nothing more nothing less.

Now lets talk about news limited interest in MySpace… The number one competitor to Facebook…

Nevyn says:

05:03pm | 21/05/10

I have found the best way to stop unknowns having access to my private data on falsebook is to tell porkies in the first place. I don’t use my real name, I don’t use any pics of myself online, I don’t post anything other than “I’m male and living in Adelaide”... even that is false to a point,, i could be 50 mile out, you’ll never know. The way I figure is my contacts on facebook that know me personally, don’t need to be told my real name for that very reason, they already know it and the contacts who don’t know my real details, don’t need to know. PS, even the details I use here are different to that which I use on falsebook.

David says:

11:15am | 23/05/10

Take the time to investigate what happens when a new account is opened and i did when my 16year old joined it would be found that the Default for sharing is to share everything with everyone and it is a lengthy procedure and not the first thing done to change these defaults. In fact it is not a procedure. One joins fills in personal information and then if one Remembers to,  they can then go to the account and check privacy concerns. It is not something that is part of the jpining process, it is an afterthought on behalf of the consumer. Its akin to actually having to read the small print , every single word of it and that is why they are now looking at the issue. My 16 year old is cancelling his face book tomorrow and has joined myspace, not an easy thing to do when all his friends are on facebook..

David V. says:

06:16pm | 23/05/10

It’s not wholly the fault of social networking. But I think we would do well to heed the words of HM Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, with what she said about social media in her Christmas speech. The disconnection and self-absorption of our society as a result.

Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, etc are tools. They are neither good nor evil in themselves, depending entirely on the user.