The Evolution of Privacy on Facebook

[I.J. Reilly]

This image shows the default privacy settings for all facebook users in 2005:



This image is of the default privacy settings for all users as of facebook users in April of 2010:



I love when a good information graphic can bring something to life that otherwise might seem abstract, and I think this graphic has done it. You can go to the site and see all the changes that have happened in the privacy settings of facebook from 2005 to 2010. Three of those changes have happened in the last six months (Nov. 2009, Dec. 2009, and April 2010). Facebook has finally turned a profit, and this is the reason why.

[pellegrino]

So these are through the default settings though, right? So long as I go through and manually change who can see what my information can only be seen by those whom I select, correct?

[Surfah]

So these are through the default settings though, right? So long as I go through and manually change who can see what my information can only be seen by those whom I select, correct?

Correct. The problem though is each time Facebook updates their site they revert the privacy settings to their new default settings. It's wise to check them periodically to ensure your privacy.

[SteelBlue]

This was an interesting write up on The Baseline Scenario blog:

http://baselinescenario.com/2010/05/09/bye-bye-facebook/

He references your graphic and basically declares that he is finished with facebook.

[I.J. Reilly]

More than a few people have been worried about privacy and facebook. Here is an article that I came across this morning. These guys are working on putting an open-source program together that will decentralize the information found on a social network (essentially, it allows you to host your own information) and at the same time, handing back the reigns of privacy to the users. Here is the website for their project, and it includes a bunch of information on the how and why for their project, for those who are so inclined. When they finally do get the code up and running, I'm sure it will be something that I'll check out.

One problem that I see with this project, and the same problem faced by any project of this sort, is reaching critical mass. That is, who wants to be on a social site that no one is on? Facebook faced this same challenge when they entered the market, but I think they had a good answer, and I wonder if these guys won't do the same thing. Essentially, when facebook entered, everyone who was social networking at the time was on MySpace. FB used an affinity marketing plan to perfection, imo, by making their product available only to a small group of users at a time, reaching critical mass among one group and then moving on to others. FB's killer app was that it solved the "noise" problem of MySpace and the privacy worries of many potential customers who had yet to get into the market, at the same time.

Now, they've essentially sold their value proposition down the river and bet on a new one - being "the biggest." You can observe how well that worked out for facebook's predecessors. All of the games, apps, quizzes, and et cetera clutter now on FB has re-created MySpace's "noise" problem, and FB's race to monetization has killed their privacy value. Oh well, at least Mark Zuckerburg made a bunch of money in the interim.

[Surfah]

More than a few people have been worried about privacy and facebook. Here is an article that I came across this morning. These guys are working on putting an open-source program together that will decentralize the information found on a social network (essentially, it allows you to host your own information) and at the same time, handing back the reigns of privacy to the users. Here is the website for their project, and it includes a bunch of information on the how and why for their project, for those who are so inclined. When they finally do get the code up and running, I'm sure it will be something that I'll check out.

One problem that I see with this project, and the same problem faced by any project of this sort, is reaching critical mass. That is, who wants to be on a social site that no one is on? Facebook faced this same challenge when they entered the market, but I think they had a good answer, and I wonder if these guys won't do the same thing. Essentially, when facebook entered, everyone who was social networking at the time was on MySpace. FB used an affinity marketing plan to perfection, imo, by making their product available only to a small group of users at a time, reaching critical mass among one group and then moving on to others. FB's killer app was that it solved the "noise" problem of MySpace and the privacy worries of many potential customers who had yet to get into the market, at the same time.

Now, they've essentially sold their value proposition down the river and bet on a new one - being "the biggest." You can observe how well that worked out for facebook's predecessors. All of the games, apps, quizzes, and et cetera clutter now on FB has re-created MySpace's "noise" problem, and FB's race to monetization has killed their privacy value. Oh well, at least Mark Zuckerburg made a bunch of money in the interim.

I was going to post a link to Diaspora as well. Looks like they reached their funding. Just last week they had some special donor gifts for people who donated $1000 or $5000+ like your own laptop. I don't know that it can or will take off though. It will be interesting to watch.

[Scott R Nelson]

While we're getting down on Facebook here is some more interesting reading on the subject:

Facebook’s Gone Rogue; It’s Time for an Open Alternative

Major security hole

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6cfBNVM2X8"]YouTube- How to Delete Facebook Account (Extreme Prejudice & a Bit of Style)[/nomedia]

[I.J. Reilly]

Just thought I would add to the list of articles that are expressing or reporting on unhappiness/uneasiness with facebook. Here is an article from yesterday's NY Times that highlights several companies that are developing alternatives to the various problems that facebook is perceived to have:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/te...ocial.html?hpw

[I.J. Reilly]

My brother posted this privacy tool on his facebook stream yesterday:

ReclaimPrivacy.org | Facebook Privacy Scanner

I ran it on both my FB profile and my wife's FB profile. Works great!

Recommended.

cheers.

Thanks for the link, SG. Works like a charm, and I even discovered some stuff that I thought was more restricted than it was.

[Coach McGuirk]

Thanks for the link, SG. Works like a charm, and I even discovered some stuff that I thought was more restricted than it was.

Thanks as well SG. Works well and I shared it for others on my wall. I love their privacy policy.

Our privacy policy is not long:

• we never see your Facebook data
• we never share your personal information

[falafel]

Yes, works very well. Highly recommended.

[il Padrino Ute]

My brother posted this privacy tool on his facebook stream yesterday:

ReclaimPrivacy.org | Facebook Privacy Scanner

I ran it on both my FB profile and my wife's FB profile. Works great!

Recommended.

cheers.

Thanks for that, SG.

[Uncle Ted]

For some reason I don't believe Facebook takes privacy and security seriously...

An unknown hacker broke into the 26-year-old internet celebrity's Facebook account and posted a bizarre message calling upon the firm to adopt a social cause:

"Let the hacking begin: If facebook needs money, instead of going to the banks, why doesn't Facebook let its users invest in Facebook in a social way? Why not transform Facebook into a 'social business' the way Nobel Prize winner Muhammad Yunus described it? [LINK] What do you think? #hackercup2011"

More than 1800 people "liked" the update before Facebook took down their CEO's page. Facebook has made no public statement about how the hack occurred, possibly to save their CEO from embarrassment.

Zuckerberg's Facebook hack comes just days after French President Nicolas Sarkozy's Facebook account was also breached.

"Facebook users - famous or not - need to take better care of their social networking security," said Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant at Sophos.

"Mark Zuckerberg might be wanting to take a close look at his privacy and security settings after this embarrassing breach. It's not clear if he was careless with his password, was phished, or sat down in a Starbucks and got sidejacked while using an unencrypted wireless network, but however it happened, it's left egg on his face just when Facebook wants to reassure users that it takes security and privacy seriously. Maybe Mr Zuckerberg would be wise to get a refresher on computer security best practice."