ie8 fix

Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

Facebook settings: A tale of two defaults

By | January 26, 2011, 12:20pm PST

Another new Facebook feature can only mean one thing: it’s time to review my privacy settings again.

Once again, Facebook has rolled out some new features affect how much of your information can be viewed by others - hackers, non-Facebookers, advertisers and so on. And once again, Facebook has botched how they’ve rolled these out.

Here’s what I’m quickly learning about Facebook when it comes to rolling out new features. If the feature is a benefit to Facebook, then you’re automatically added in. But if the feature benefits you - and not necessarily Facebook - then it’s up to you to go in and adjust your settings.

Today, the company announced a new HTTPS browsing capability, which essentially puts your Facebook browsing experience behind a secured Web browser so that others can’t access it - just like your bank does when you’re paying bills online or online retailers do when it comes time to make your purchase.

That means the company is making it possible for users to put their Facebook pages behind that secured browser, as well - but those users have to go in to the settings to manually activate it. Facebook isn’t making that feature a default setting.

Just yesterday, I wrote about a feature called Sponsored Stories, where Facebook links your “likes” and other info with advertisers to create ads that feed to your friends. if you liked a movie and said as much on Facebook, then the company is going to place an ad on your friends’ pages that says as much - though made to look like an ad for that movie.

From what I can tell, there’s no way to opt-out of this one.

And then there’s the Instant Personalization feature, which rolled out last Spring but I must have missed because I’m only hearing about it now. The idea behind that one is to take the information about what you like - favorite songs, movies, books and so on - and share that information with “partner sites” so they can share make your Web browsing experience that much more personal.

In case you didn’t know it, that feature was enabled, by default, for every Facebook page. I disabled mine this morning - though it seems like my information has been swirling around out there for months.

Here’s my question: What is it going to take for Mark Zuckerberg and the rest of the Facebook team to finally get the message that we want our privacy respected? If I wanted my Web experience to be more personalized, give me the option of opting-in to those features. Don’t just include me in some money-making scheme that only further compromises my privacy.

It’s deceptive. It’s shady and it’s just flat out wrong.

Within the privacy settings, there’s a page called “Controlling How You Share.” On it, there are tips about how to adjust your privacy settings. And further down, the company offers this tidbit of information about its advertising policies. It reads:

We never share your personal information with our advertisers. Facebook’s ad targeting is done entirely anonymously. If advertisers select demographic targeting for their ads, Facebook automatically matches those ads to the appropriate audience. Advertisers only receive anonymous data reports.

When I read trash like this, I want to call Zuckerberg and tell him, “Liar, liar, pants on fire…” At this point, I no longer have any faith in Facebook to keep its word.

Here’s the thing: With more than 500 million people on the network - many of whom seem to be addicted - does Facebook get a free pass to do whatever it wants, recognizing that half-a-billion people aren’t just going to walk out of the party over something like this? Apparently, Facebook thinks that it has a long-term lock on these users and that nothing will upset us enough to walk away.

Then again, I remember when MySpace used to be the leader in social networking.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Sam has been a technology and business blogger for more than 18 years.

Disclosure

Sam Diaz

Sam Diaz has nothing to disclose.

Biography

Sam Diaz

Sam has been a technology and business blogger, reporter and editor at ZDNet, the Washington Post, San Jose Mercury News and Fresno Bee for more than 18 years. He's a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and a graduate of California State University, Fresno.

12
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Platform apps setting
janitorman Updated - 2nd Feb 2011
On that same privacy setting page, simply turn off ALL Apps you use with the settings button. The following will appear:
"You have turned off all platform apps, games and websites.
The following settings will also be applied: "Info accessible through your friends: ... This is disabled because you turned off all platform apps.
Game and app activity: ...This is disabled because you turned off all platform apps.
Instant personalization This is disabled because you turned off all platform apps. "
Of course this will make FB less of a "social site" which is why I set it that way! I HATE the idea of social sites!
DONE!
0 Votes
+ -
It will take a boycott of their site. Don't whine. Hit them where it hurts.
0 Votes
+ -
@Michael Kelly Great idea. Can you bring 499,999,999 of your friends?

Us geeks speak of boycotting, or not having a profile on FB at all...but lets be real here. The average FB user is completely unaware of anything relating to FB and privacy, and really...if you're sharing your life on the internet...how much do you really care about privacy? Really?

FB will reign supreme until some other site/service comes out that is better. And even then...it will take a very large critical mass of those 500 Million users to switch (or use both temporarily) before the average dumb user moves.

Ranting about facebook is like being in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.
0 Votes
+ -
@samalie
What a contemptuous attitude toward special olympic athletes.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Facebook settings: A tale of two defaults
erik.soderquist 27th Jan 2011
@samalie

a war veteran who's leg was destroyed by a grenade he used his body to shield his fellow soldiers from is also in the special olympics... do you think he is retarded?
0 Votes
+ -
@samalie
You have made it quite clear who's retarded, and it's not anyone who participated in the Special Olympics!
0 Votes
+ -
Diaspora
calmo 26th Jan 2011
https://joindiaspora.com/
I'm standing by for my invite.
0 Votes
+ -
@samalie
That was a way wrong to use that analogy. I'm not one for being PC but tact and diplomacy is appreciated. Just because someone is in Special Olympics doesn't mean they are retarded as you call it. They could have other problems.
0 Votes
+ -
Two Points
PsychoLizard 27th Jan 2011
Two Points:

1) Facebook does not cost money to use; did anyone really think it was actually free? Nothing is free. The price you pay is privacy. So how much is your privacy worth to you? How much are you willing to pay to keep Facebook from sharing that information? Money talks. Bull$#!+ walks. Petition for a paid-access option that allows you to give your actual-money to Facebook to keep your private information from being shared with advertisers for potential future-money.

2) Think about the five most popular websites: Google, Facebook, YouTube, Yahoo, and Live. Do you think Facebook is the only one giving your personal information to advertisers? Are they even really the worst offenders? The number one website, Google, is even less transparent with their policies than Facebook is. Are you going to quit using every website that does share private data? Put up or shut up.

It's not that Facebook has carte blanche and can do as it pleases, but Facebook is offering an incredibly useful service at no monetary cost to its members. How would you subsidize, capitalize, and monetize the largest social networking website on the planet? Or would you just give it all away for free out of the goodness of your heart? There hasn't been a website before with 500,000,000 active members sharing so much personal information (on purpose) in the history of the Internet and finding out what people will and won't put up with is vital for the survival of Facebook. Acting like Mark Zuckerberg should automatically know what to do when nobody else has ever done it before is completely ridiculous.
0 Votes
+ -
@PsychoLizard

"Facebook does not cost money to use; did anyone really think it was actually free? "

I pay every month for WoW, and I'd be willing to pay a minimal fee for Facebook, if it meant getting rid of all the stupidity they've done.

I don't think they've even tried offering some sort of "premium Facebook" that allows users to get rid of all of the junk.

Instead, they keep insisting of playing around with advertisers while ignoring users.

They need to listen to ALL of their stakeholders, and frankly IMO the consumer should be THE most important stakeholder of any business. They shouldn't be paying attention to the advertisers while ignoring the users.

"Do you think Facebook is the only one giving your personal information to advertisers?"

Nope.

"Are they even really the worst offenders?"

Yup.

"The number one website, Google, is even less transparent with their policies than Facebook is."

Actually, Google is the ad agency, allowing others to use their ad services (AdWords / AdSense). Most of their income comes from their own advertising products.

If you really want to know how much info they give to those who advertise through them, join AdWords and AdSense and see how much info they give you.

In addition, their policy is actually very public - it was easy to find and opt out of:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/ads/

"It's not that Facebook has carte blanche and can do as it pleases"

As far as I can tell, they do as long as they remain technically legal.

"How would you subsidize, capitalize, and monetize the largest social networking website on the planet? "

I'd start by asking the users. But I guess that's too obvious.

"Or would you just give it all away for free out of the goodness of your heart?"

If I could afford it, I would.

"here hasn't been a website before with 500,000,000 active members sharing so much personal information (on purpose) in the history of the Internet"

All the more reason to make sure they get a voice.

"and finding out what people will and won't put up with is vital for the survival of Facebook."

They should try ASKING THEM!

"Let's play around and see what works" isn't the way to do it, sorry.

"Acting like Mark Zuckerberg should automatically know what to do when nobody else has ever done it before is completely ridiculous."

That's no excuse to be reckless, either. If you want to create a new service, take the responsible route and start with surveys, test cases, and research. Don't just throw it out there and see what happens.
0 Votes
+ -
Petitioning for Paid Access
PsychoLizard 28th Jan 2011
@CobraA1 Does that mean you're petitioning for paid access like I suggested in the first paragraph of my original post? Considering you mentioned you would be willing to pay for access it seems like a good suggestion, doesn't it? Sometimes companies are clueless about what users wants. There's been tons of "Keep Facebook Free" campaigns. That would naturally keep most companies from even offering a paid option. The most vocal people so far have been the ones who still want a free ride. Put your money where your mouth is and create a campaign for paid access. It probably would have taken less time to create a Facebook group that people could "Like" or "Join" than it did to write your reply. Even though I don't necessarily want to pay for Facebook, I would if there was a compelling enough reason and I'd be willing to join your Facebook group to get the ball rolling. If I actually thought Facebook was nefarious I'd create the group myself. If the users of Facebook want a voice, Mark Zuckerberg has already provided the tools.

Google does not only use your personal information for AdWords or AdSense, how are they using it for their own purposes? Do you even know? They're not required to say, really, since they're using it internally. They're a large enough company that they could conceivably find plenty of ways to make money with your private information without ever sharing it with a third party in the first place. How do you feel about that? You answer is that Facebook is the worst offender. Where's your proof? I never said anyone was worse than Facebook but I strongly question whether they are as bad as everyone automatically assumes they are. It seems like there's a lot of fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Facebook right now. Is it genuine ignorance on the part of users? Is there an agenda by people writing articles? We're living in the information age. There are are hundreds upon hundreds, perhaps thousands upon thousands, of news websites clamoring for our attention. How much is being overblown to attract readers?

As for the Facebook privacy policy, it's easy enough to find, too:
http://www.facebook.com/policy.php And even though it takes work you can certainly opt out of several things. The problem is that the more you opt out of the less useful social networking becomes. Think about it: If you remove yourself from search results the people who are trying to connect with you for some reason are no longer able to. The more you lock down your content the less useful a social networking service becomes.

I certainly agree that Facebook does not have a license to be reckless with personal user information but it's not always easy to tell what's reckless. Facebook makes the following claim "Facebook does not share personally identifiable information with advertisers unless we get your permission." So are they lying? Or are they finding other ways to personalize the experience without sharing the information with third parties? From a technical point of view, it is not necessary for Facebook to share the fact that you might like Dr. Pepper with the Dr. Pepper company itself to show you an ad for Dr. Pepper. They can filter the ads and put them in front of the correct users without ever sharing personally identifiable information with third parties. They could also do the same thing with the personalized stories people are getting riled up about. Don't get me wrong, creating ads out of your friends' posts is tacky but it still does not require Facebook to actually share personally identifiable information with third parties.

You say you would give Facebook away for free if you could afford to. How would you afford to? What would you change? How would you pay your developers? Your translators? Your IT department? It can't be cheap to run the world's largest social networking website. Making money is not wrong. There are many, many people who benefit directly and indirectly from Facebook finding a way to subsidize, monetize, and capitalize on their service. Perhaps even you.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Facebook settings: A tale of two defaults
Alex G. (DV411) 27th Jan 2011
Sam, you are calling (or want to call) Zuckerberg a liar because of FB statement that "We never share your personal information with our advertisers."

I am just not sure it's a lie. Sponsored stories are being fed to your friends (not advertisers) according to your privacy settings, aren't they? In that case, the statement is true. And if, say, you "liked" and/or commented on a public page - that is public by definition, no point in getting angry that someone makes money off of it.
0 Votes
+ -
Platform apps setting
janitorman Updated - 2nd Feb 2011
On that same privacy setting page, simply turn off ALL Apps you use with the settings button. The following will appear:
"You have turned off all platform apps, games and websites.
The following settings will also be applied: "Info accessible through your friends: ... This is disabled because you turned off all platform apps.
Game and app activity: ...This is disabled because you turned off all platform apps.
Instant personalization This is disabled because you turned off all platform apps. "
Of course this will make FB less of a "social site" which is why I set it that way! I HATE the idea of social sites!
DONE!

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix