Facebook 'Quitters': The kids who cried wolf?

By | May 31, 2010, 1:10pm PDT

Summary: Does this mean that Facebook has truly grown to be a goliath force we can’t live without, even if we’re terrified of what it might do with our information?

Over the course of the last several weeks, several outraged Facebook users have taken to the web with declarations of quitting the service and trying to find another home. Some of them have even taken to the Facebook site itself to try and lobby for such a service (irony). The challenge, however, is that Facebook has become so ubiquitous — so much that brands are using Facebook vanity URLs versus corporate sites in ads — that there’s nowhere else for these people to go without losing the networks they have built. At the same time, if they were really so outraged, wouldn’t they just leave anyway? Apparently, it’s not so easy for these screamers to put their actions where their mouths are.

I brought all of this up because today is apparently “Quit Facebook Day”. If you haven’t heard about it it’s likely because no one you know is doing it. According to the web site aptly named “Quit Facebook Day,” more than 31,000 people have pledged to quit Facebook today. That seems merely a blip compared to the amount of rage that has swept the web since the last explosion over Facebook’s privacy tactics. More so, that’s only about 0.07 percent of the social network’s 400+ million users. Of course, many revolutions do start small, and only the data will tell at the end of the day whether or not people actually quit. Yet even many of the comments on the Quit Facebook Day site say things like, “I would quit but my friends and family use it” or “I won’t quit, but sure this is a great idea.”

So, what is the point of all of these people crying wolf?

In a press conference last week, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg talked about how the company’s leadership is indeed listening to its users about their apparent dissatisfaction. Granted, the company had little choice but to listen due to the international media attention it was getting and the poorly handled public relations nightmare that ensued, but Facebook quickly came forth with some changes that simplified the privacy administration for those who were finding it to be too difficult or confusing.  Zuckerberg also discussed how the company tracks users’ reasons for leaving the site when they do, and claimed that privacy has rarely been at the top of the list. Not to mention, the site has continued to grow through all of the hoopla. Granted, there are many more fixes that Facebook needs to make, and the site is still questionable in its practices, but this “boycott” approach may be futile.

Does this mean that Facebook is indeed akin to Google, a goliath force that we can’t live without, even if we’re terrified of what it might do with our information? Or does this mean that not as many people are as willing to vote with their feet and move away from Facebook for fear of losing their networks? How powerful is social presence, anyway?

The “Quit Facebook Day” threat reminds me of a “TwitOut” that was scheduled just over two years ago in response to Twitter’s then unreliable servers. A group of people tired of unreliability — who also happened to be big fans of FriendFeed — picked a date and asked their networks to tell Twitter that they weren’t going to take it anymore and were taking their “business” elsewhere. Well, I thought that was kind of preposterous, and I even created a mockery at the same time called Twitter Love Day, and all in all the TwitOut was kind of a failure. Yes, it did give more visibility to the great service of FriendFeed, which unfortunately never came into the mainstream limelight before it was acquired by Facebook. But it was merely months after the TwitOut that Twitter really started to garner national attention from the media and from celebrity users who brought with them their legions of fans.

So, what is the point of all of this noise? I remember a lesson I learned in my early 20s. Usually, if people merely threaten to stop doing something, it means they really don’t want to stop doing it. Those who are serious about a boycott will just boycott, and then try to bring others to follow them. By all means, if someone is not happy with Facebook’s practices, he or she should delete or lock down their profiles. Yet many who are leading these boycotts never take the first steps themselves. And some threatening to leave Facebook for fear of lack of privacy are the same ones happily chatting on public Twitter feeds. Hypocrisy aside, rather than throw an online tantrum, why not organize people for positive change? Create a lobby for better privacy requirements for social networks across the board. Help educate readers and followers on ways that they can better protect themselves. But stop the whining. Unless your goal is to eventually get your network to leave you, there has to be a more positive way to impact change.

Image courtesy of Newsvetter’s The Guhmshoo Gallery

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

Topics

Jennifer Leggio, aka "Mediaphyter," writes about the "social business" side of social media - including enterprise, security and reputation issues.

Disclosure

Jennifer Leggio

Jennifer is employed full-time with Fortinet, a leading network security appliance vendor. She is also actively involved in the network security community and works with the Security Bloggers Network. She co-manages the annual Security Bloggers Meet-UP at RSA Conference.

Jennifer is also involved with Silicon Valley Tweet-Up, a philanthropic networking event that brings people together to raise money for local family-oriented charities.

The blog posts here are solely her opinion and do not represent her employer or any other organization with which she may be affiliated.

Biography

Jennifer Leggio

Jennifer Leggio (@mediaphyter) has been a communications professional for more than 15 years, focusing primarily on enterprise technology and security. She is currently the director of strategic communications for a leading network security vendor. Jennifer is also passionate about all things social media, especially enterprise, security, privacy and reputation issues, which is why she writes about these things for ZDNet.

A well-connected communicator, Jennifer has led or supported interactive social networking efforts for security industry conferences including RSA Conference, Black Hat USA and SOURCE Conference, and founded the Security Twits, a community for network security professionals. She also helps run communications for the Security Bloggers Network.

Finally, Jennifer co-hosts the Quick'n'Dirty social media podcast with Aaron Strout, is a founding member of Technically Women, a communal blog project, and manages marketing and public relations for Silicon Valley Tweet-Up, a networking group that raises money for family-oriented charities. Jennifer was profiled in Silicon Valley San Jose Business Journal's "40 Under 40" edition, as a rising star for 2009.

Talkback Most Recent of 93 Talkback(s)

  • RE: Facebook 'Quitters': The kids who cried wolf?
    Anyone who maintains a presence on Facebook with their real identity after the revelations of recent weeks deserves what he gets. The way to reward Mark Zuckerberg for his arrogance and casual attitude about personal information is to STAY with Facebook, but set up numerous fictitious identities, thus poisoning the database and making it useless for sale or rental.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    phil8192
    31st May 2010
  • RE: Facebook 'Quitters': The kids who cried wolf?
    @phil8192
    What exactly are you worried about? What is it I deserve?
    I like Facebook! I like how it connects me to my friends!
    Sure it's had some growing pains, but if you really think Internet privacy is an issue, then don't post your picture here in ZDNet! In fact, shut off your computer right now!!

    Really, to me it's a matter of people being indignant for the sake of being indignant. When push comes to shove, they like their Facebook drug and can't live without it! wink
    That's because it's actually fun and useful (IMHO).
    ZDNet Gravatar
    rossdav@...
    31st May 2010
  • the difference...
    @rossdav@... The difference is that here, you know that what you say is open to everybody who wants to, to read. Facebook gave the false promise of chatting among a few friends, only to publish them wholesale to anybody who wanted to listen.

    For the paranoid, who understood the privacy controls, it isn't a problem. For the unwashed masses, who wouldn't know a privacy control if it came up and slapped them (like their partner is likely to do, after they mistakenly post on Facebook, that they had a one night stand, thinking it only goes out to a couple of close friends), this is a nightmare which is waiting to happen (to them) and is being repeated time and again.

    Just look at the sites which are cropping up, exploiting this sort of thing - from Failbook to youropenbook.org. The average user hasn't a clue, what they are doing on Facebook and are shocked, when their partner leaves them, they lose a job or become a social pariah, because they didn't understand Facebook's privacy settings.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    wright_is
    1st Jun 2010
  • ZDNet Gravatar
    brighteyes459@...
    1st Jun 2010
  • RE: What exactly are you worried about? What is it I deserve?
    @rossdav@... My picture is not a picture of me; I'm logged in via a Facebook identity that's completely fictitious, so I'm not "worried". If Mr. Zuckerberg publishes personal information that you posted on Facebook and that information is subsequently used to commit identity theft, well, who are you going to blame? I've seen recent claims that anywhere from 1 in 20 to 1 in 5 Americans will suffer identity theft at some time in their lives. Even at the lower estimate, I don't like the odds.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    phil8192
    2nd Jun 2010
  • RE: Facebook 'Quitters': The kids who cried wolf?
    @phil8192
    Exactly. I have a facebook account under an alternative name, minimal data, and anything personal that could be linked to my real identity is altered. My friends all know my FB name because I informed them privately. At first it was a little slower going, but once my network "got" my username, things progressed normally. Anyone wanting personal data about employment, education, personal tastes in movies, books, music, etc. are simply invited to ask me. I figure if you want to know, just ask. But being recently divorced, I wised up when my relationship status change generated tons of unwanted dating service ads. Now any data useful for data miners is either false or unavailable. No FB apps are approved, and I don't miss them and their massive time wasting notifications (I hide other people's app notifications from my newsfeed, so much cleaner...)
    ZDNet Gravatar
    pdxflint
    31st May 2010
  • RE: Facebook 'Quitters': The kids who cried wolf?
    @pdxflint Whats the point of having a "social" network if you have to hide your identity? Isn't the whole point of Facebook to interact with other people? I thought you were supposed to share you thoughts and likes with everyone. If you're afraid to share then be on Facebook at all?
    ZDNet Gravatar
    rkinne01
    31st May 2010
  • RE: Facebook 'Quitters': The kids who cried wolf?
    @rkinne01
    I do have a social network, made up of real people who know who I am, nickname notwithstanding. They are smart enough to "translate" my alter-ego name with the real me. My interactions are exactly the same as they would be with my "real" name. In fact, a fair number of my real "friends" don't show up under their actual given names, but we know who they are. The data miners, however, don't. Consider it a "code" where those social contacts who are trusted know what it means, and others, like nosy bosses, etc. don't. I don't have a problem with my intended social network having my real information, but I object to it being freely passed on to marketers and who knows who else. Why do you think the concept of approving "friends" even exists in the first place? For user controlled privacy. All I'm doing is retaining some of the privacy controls originally promised by FB, which is now history... Be my guest, and share all your data, including address, phone number, email, bio history with the world, but I'd prefer a little more safekeeping. It's common sense to me, but different strokes for different folks...
    ZDNet Gravatar
    pdxflint
    31st May 2010
  • RE: Facebook 'Quitters': The kids who cried wolf?
    @rkinne01 social is not placing your personal info, if you want to interact you do usually through direct messaging, commenting posts, discussions, etc what social have in adding static personal information, you want to find girls go to match.com or something
    ZDNet Gravatar
    keoz
    1st Jun 2010
  • Facebook quitters sound an awefull lot like the
    @phil8192: Tea Partiers. Whine about this, whine about that, but when it comes to really doing what it takes to do it, they back off. So in this case, "Quit FB because the Privacy Settings suck" but then "I would but...." it is laughable.

    Like the Tea Party, "we need to fix the deficit, and reduce bureaucratic programs" the answer is of course eliminate entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. TP response, "keep your socialist hands off my medicare" Oh the irony.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Snooki_smoosh_smoosh
    1st Jun 2010
  • RE: Facebook 'Quitters': The kids who cried wolf?
    @JM1981 You're using a tech bog to take a jab at the Tea Party? WTF?! Quite the opportunist, aren't you?
    ZDNet Gravatar
    I12BPhil
    1st Jun 2010
  • Re: Facebook quitters sound an awefull lot like the
    @JM1981 I actually deleted my Facebook account because it normally just sits there, disused, forwarding my Twitter posts. I'm not bothered a huge deal with the privacy, "issues" (I know what information I've given the WWW anyway), I just don't use it all that much. It's something I'd have to keep a full-screen window open and to sit watching/reading it for ages at a time for it to be useful, and that's just boring to me.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    supermadman
    1st Jun 2010
  • RE: Tea Party
    @JM1981 Did something happen while I was asleep? How did the Tea Party movement make it into this conversation?
    ZDNet Gravatar
    phil8192
    2nd Jun 2010
  • RE: Facebook 'Quitters': The kids who cried wolf?
    @Snooki_smoosh_smoosh Nursing school
    fire science degree
    ZDNet Gravatar
    rainnwilson94
    8th Sep
  • RE: Facebook 'Quitters': The kids who cried wolf?
    @phil8192 correct! That is what should be done. I just find it ridiculous people had their real info on facebook in the first place, but I guess that defeats the purpose of a social network.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    baalpeteor
    1st Jun 2010

Talkback - Tell Us What You Think

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]

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources