Facebook caved to the pressure of its users who felt their privacy was being violated by the social network's recently announced Beacon advertising program. Late Thursday Facebook said it would make changes to a Web tracking feature that notifies one's Facebook friends when a user visits affiliated Web sites. Nearly 50,000 people signed a petition demanding a change to the program.
The question remains: now that Facebook took corrective actions, was it enough? I don't think so.
Facebook issued its official statement last night, outlining the numerous ways it has scaled back the use of the advertising Beacon. Facebook now says its Beacon ad system is an opt-in choice for its users. Under the original plan, Facebook users were automatically enrolled in the Beacon ad program. If they choose not to participate in the program Facebook users had to pro-actively opt-out. Now only those who pro-actively opt-in to the program will participate.
This isn't the first public attack on the three-week-old ad program either. Just days after its announcement, a number of law professors expressed their concern with the ads' failure to adhere to common privacy torts.
As I see it, Facebook may have survived the first wave of attacks, but I doubt the war will be over until the company does away with the program all together. It might not hurt to take one of those Google-like corporate pledges to "do no evil" either.
I'm surprised Facebook didn't just kill the feature. I'm also disappointed. In fact, as a Facebook user I'm not hearing a very strong apology. Judging from a statement posted to Facebook's Website it seems determined to continue the program despite the backlash:
"Stories about actions users take on external websites will continue to be presented to users at the top of their News Feed the next time they return to Facebook. These stories will now always be expanded on their home page so they can see and read them clearly."
Is Facebook's goose cooked in the eyes of its members? Probably not. As even angry MoveOn.org petitioners noted, "A lot of us love Facebook--it's helping to revolutionize the way we connect with each other. But they need to take privacy seriously."
Seems to me this entire episode is a good example of Facebook users keeping its beloved social network in check. Watch out Facebook, now we're keeping close tabs on you.
I think Facebook's official response to users against this ad service is wonderful, I certainly hope more free internet services listen to their users. Is there more they could have done? Maybe, but not as this article suggests.
Get rid of the problem all together? No... that's not just a silly idea but a slap in the face to a company that provides a social networking site free of charge.
The problem is that someone needs to pay Facebook. The ideal way is of course revenue generated through advertisements. Having personal information sent to such advertising sites isn't exactly my idea of good policy either, but throwing such programs out entirely is bad business.
Users sign up to Facebook willingly. If this program will be clearly defined at sign up and be optional (such as an extra check box) I believe that Facebook is doing all they should be doing. Countless free internet services and each one is supported by various opt-in-services.
Your paranoia is unfounded.
"Your paranoia is unfounded."
I take that to mean you haven't read this article about it:
Facebook's Beacon More Intrusive Than Previously Thought
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,140182/article.html?tk=nl_dnxnws
In Europe, Opt-in is the only legal method for using consumer data. So what is wrong with asking the user: you can get Facebook for free if you are willing to accept banners and advertisement, even an email per month with some promotional offers, or you pay 5 dollars a month?.. I indeed think Facebook did enough. It is nice that investors are willing to invest in the development of free apps, but in the end somebody has to pay for the development costs. Unless you have a different business model. And this touches uppon any business. If a company can afford to supply a product for free cause they are making enough money with other products (Google fi) , the rest is out of business.... I just don't hope they pick my app.. I wish Facebook all the best.
In Europe, Opt-in is the only legal method for using consumer data. So what is wrong with asking the user: you can get Facebook for free if you are willing to accept banners and advertisement, even an email per month with some promotional offers, or you pay 5 dollars a month?.. I indeed think Facebook did enough. It is nice that investors are willing to invest in the development of free apps, but in the end somebody has to pay for the development costs. Unless you have a different business model. And this touches upon any business. If a company can afford to supply a product for free cause they are making enough money with other products (Google fi) , the rest is out of business.... I just don't hope they pick my app.. I wish Facebook all the best.