Facebook’s face embraces anonymity on line…. possibly.

February 5, 2014 |

Forbes reports that Mark Zuckerberg’s apparent softening on privacy, at least as far as supporting anonymity, in  Zuckerberg’s Embrace Of Anonymity Marks Shift In Attitudes Toward Privacy.  It may be a nuanced change but a step, even if of the micro variety, is to be welcomed.  As the article ponders, the proof is in the eating.

The article provides:

In an interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek on Thursday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted that he thought it was “somewhat of a burden” if you are “always under the pressure of a real identity.”

If anyone else had said something so obvious it would be completely unremarkable.  But coming from the same person who once threatened “the age of privacy is over” and having “two identities is an example of a lack of integrity,” this is no casual observation.  It took him a decade to get to this point.  The king of social media is finally recognizing that privacy is not just some cultural relic to be engineered away.

Whether it is a sign of greater maturity or the result of a less militant point of view, it remains to be seen just how serious Zuckerberg is about allowing anonymity across his platform.  After all, making the world more “open and connected” isn’t about providing a service – it’s about changing the way the world operates; it’s about making a culture more acceptable to Facebook, not the other way around.  An entire ecosystem of entrepreneurs and marketers has worked to build out his vision by cashing in on our personal information.

It seems that Zuckerberg’s law of information sharing may have been derailed by a variable that he didn’t initially account for: reality.

Facebook has tried to change the way we share online without taking into account how we actually want to behave.  For years users have complained about Facebook’s aggressive, constantly changing privacy policies but that is still standard practice for the company.  Regulators have tried to reign in their advertising practices and use of biometrics, but little has changed in terms of consumer protections.  Facebook has become dull in the eyes of its users, but its intention was always to be more useful than cool anyway.

So what has caused this sudden change of heart?  In some ways it’s been a long time coming.  People have naturally become more familiar with social media and the pitfalls that come from over-sharing.  We all know somebody that had a job or relationship ruined by the wrong person seeing something that was made public.  And with Snowden’s revelations on everyone’s mind, there is certainly growing concern on what can be done with the information we leave behind everywhere.  But there’s little evidence these worries have actually led to disconnecting from Facebook en masse.

Instead, it turns out that competitive pressure is what it takes for Facebook to change its behavior.  It’s no small coincidence that these comments come on the heels of reports that Snapchat rejected an acquisition bid.  That app, and the entire crop of ephemeral, privacy preserving services represent an existential threat to a culture of pervasive, non-stop sharing.  Facebook recognizes this and wants that data – it’s leaders have decided that they are not going to let their futuristic visions get in the way of the bottom line.

Silicon Valley companies will still get rich from monetizing your personal information, but their rhetoric may finally become less tone-deaf.

And that alone may be enough to spark a more nuanced discussion of what users expect from the companies they entrust with their information.  We see now that the future of social media isn’t necessarily going to be decided by Facebook (or Google).  Chris Poole, the founder of Internet discussion forum 4chan and a longtime advocate for anonymity online, wrote that Zuckerberg’s comments create an opening and “the time for reimagining online identity has come.”  Privacy isn’t dead as long as it’s in demand.

Facebook’s growth struggles reveal that it’s not enough for a company to control your secrets and shape your relationships, it is has to keep your attention as well.  In the technology industry, dominance today is absolutely no guarantee of relevance tomorrow.  And that is something that consumers get to decide, not companies.

In Mark Zuckerberg’s theory of privacy the Washington Post, per Michael Zimmer, concludes that Zuckerberg view of privacy relates to control of information.  That is at best a skewed understanding of the concept but more fundamentally is entirely inconsistent with the way Facebook’s privacy settings have been changed without notice and the whole focus of Facebook is to push information out and beyond the control of any one person.

It provides:

Ten years ago, a 19-year-old Mark Zuckerberg sat at a computer in his Harvard dorm room and launched thefacebook.com. The goal, according to a 2009 Zuckerberg blog post commemorating Facebook’s 200 millionth user, was “to create a richer, faster way for people to share information about what was happening around them.”

If you believe the clumsy collegiate dating scenes in the movie “The Social Network,” however, Zuckerberg’s motivation for creating what has become the world’s largest social networking platform was, at least in part, to meet girls.

He has definitely met the first goal. (He’s also reportedly happily married, so the second one seems to have worked out for him, too.)

Today, Facebook has more than 1 billion active users who, each day, share nearly 5 billion items, upload 350 million photos and click the “like” button more than 4.5 billion times. Facebook is the world’s most popular social networking service and the second-most visited Web site. Only Google gets more visitors daily.

All that ubiquity challenges how we think about what should be private, and what we broadcast to our “friends” — a term that now includes anyone we happen to remember from high school, that temp job from a few years ago, or last night’s party.

With every new product launch, from News Feed to the doomed Beacon advertising play, it seemed Facebook would wait for the inevitable negative reaction on privacy, then announce minimal changes without fundamentally altering the new feature. It would explain away the fuss with careful spin: “We are listening to our users,” or “We look forward to your feedback.” Each time, the people at Facebook reassured us all they really want to do is make “the world more open and connected.”

In 2011, I found myself at Facebook’s Palo Alto, Calif., headquarters for a gathering of the Future of Privacy Forum, a Washington-based privacy think tank. We met a number of Facebook engineers, advertising managers and public policy executives. All these Facebook employees were being asked about privacy concerns, in a room full of privacy advocates, but not one person ever uttered the word “privacy” in their responses to us. Instead, they talked about “user control” or “user options” or promoted the “openness of the platform.” It was as if a memo had been circulated that morning instructing them never to use the word “privacy.”

Sitting in that windowed conference room, with views into the open-plan office where dozens of Facebook employees were coding away, shaping this powerful social networking platform, I wondered: Does Mark Zuckerberg think anything should be private? Or does he think all information — photos, favorite movies, political views — wants to be publicly available for everyone, especially advertisers, to see?

I didn’t get a chance to ask him. Instead, I created the Zuckerberg Files, an archive of all the public utterances of the Facebook creator. It includes blog posts, letters to shareholders, media interviews, public appearances and product presentations — nearly 100,000 words of the hoodie-ed wunderkind sharing his vision.

We’re just starting to analyze the archive, but already we can pull out three principles that appear to be at the core of Zuckerberg’s philosophy of privacy.

Information wants to be shared

Updating the 1960s techno-activist slogan “information wants to be free,” Zuckerberg clearly believes that “information wants to be shared,” and that the world will be a better place if we start sharing more information about ourselves.

While comments from Zuckerberg in 2004 and 2005 point to a desire to simply position Facebook as a “really cool college directory,” as the social network grew, so did his vision. In a 2006 blog post apologizing for the controversial rollout of the News Feed feature, Zuckerberg described his motivation this way: “When I made Facebook two years ago my goal was to help people understand what was going on in their world a little better.” A focus on “helping people become more open, sharing more information” started to emerge in Zuckerberg’s rhetoric by 2008. And by 2010, in an opinion piece in The Washington Post, Zuckerberg argued that sharing more information — your photos, your opinions, your birthday, for example — would make the world a better place: “If people share more, the world will become more open and connected. And a world that’s more open and connected is a better world.”

Privacy must be overcome

In his initial public comments about what was then thefacebook, in a Feb. 9, 2004, article in the Harvard Crimson, when Facebook was only five days old, Zuckerberg bragged about the site’s “pretty intensive privacy options.” He also acknowledged that he hoped the privacy options would help to restore his tarnished reputation following student outrage over his earlier Web site, that hot-or-not-inspired Facemash — uproar that was well-depicted in “The Social Network.”

From the start, Zuckerberg knew that privacy would be a significant factor in Facebook’s success. He regularly mentions the site’s “extensive privacy settings” in blog posts and interviews during the first few years of operation. But in many ways, Zuckerberg appears to view privacy as a barrier to the openness that his first principle demands.

This is most evident in a 2008 interview at the Web 2.0 Summit, when he noted, “four years ago, when Facebook was getting started, most people didn’t want to put up any information about themselves on the Internet. .?.?. So, we got people through this really big hurdle of wanting to put up their full name, or real picture, mobile phone number.” Later in this interview, Zuckerberg predicted that the amount of information people will share online will double each year, and the best strategy for Facebook is to be “pushing that forward.”

Control is the new privacy

When Zuckerberg does talk seriously about privacy, he almost always cites control. Zuckerberg’s apology for the launch of News Feed notes that his original vision for Facebook included the fact that users must “have control over whom they shared [their] information with.” His response to backlash over a change in the site’s terms of service in 2009 was aptly titled, “On Facebook, People Own and Control Their Information.” That statement doesn’t mention the word “privacy,” but instead declares, “Our philosophy that people own their information and control who they share it with has remained constant.” In an interview with Time magazine in 2010 Zuckerberg declares: “What people want isn’t complete privacy. It isn’t that they want secrecy. It’s that they want control over what they share and what they don’t.”

The problem with Zuckerberg’s philosophy of privacy, of course, is that over Facebook’s 10-year history, users’ ability to control their information has largely decreased. Default settings lean toward making information public, and new advertising and third-party platforms are increasingly spreading users’ information beyond their direct control.

On Feb. 18, 2004, only two weeks after Facebook’s launch, Zuckerberg noted with surprise that the site had already attracted more than 4,300 users. It was nearly impossible to predict that 10 years later his creation would be used by more than 1 billion across the planet. And it would be foolish to try to guess where Facebook will take us 10 years from now. In an interview set to air Tuesday on the “Today” show, Zuckerberg reflects: “When I look back over the last 10 years, one of the questions that I ask myself is, ‘Why were we the ones to help do this?’ And I think a lot of what it comes down to is, we just cared more.” Perhaps he does care more. I just hope he starts to care more about privacy as well in the next 10 years.





Leave a Reply