Components of the program include an "Ask the Safety Team" video series where Facebook staffers answer "frequently asked questions" about privacy and safety concerns; a tip sheet listing the top ten tools for controlling information on Facebook; and state-specific public service announcements with participating attorneys general (19 have signed on so far).
It's hard to fault Facebook for trying to make its privacy features more accessible and transparent, but it already has some vocal critics, such as the Center for Digital Democracy ("Facebook's practices regarding teens, especially its data collection and ad targeting, require an investigation-- not just some glossy educational videos and tip sheets."). It is definitely worth wondering to what degree this is a PR move versus an actual attempt to provide clearer user privacy. Most of materials posted so far are simply descriptive of the existing privacy mechanisms ("What is tagging?" or "How do I use lists to manage the audience that's seeing my updates?") or are vague and common-sense based (#6 on the tip sheet: "Check your privacy settings."). And while describing its privacy features in multiple forms might be effective, it probably says something about the clarity of Facebook's privacy features if such dumbed-down redundancies are necessary. And what happens the next time the company changes its privacy policies? Hyping up its current features to such an extent might make the inevitable changes even more confusing and alarming for users.
It's also interesting to consider this campaign in light of Facebook's 2011 settlement with the FTC, which required the maintenance of a comprehensive privacy plan, clear and prominent notice of information that will be disclosed to third parties, and biennial privacy audits. This campaign likely gives Facebook an additional tool to show the FTC how clear and upfront it is being with users about privacy, but it also provides a lot more ways in which Facebook is making promises to its users. It will probably need to be careful not to preach privacy too strongly and end up stepping on its own toes with promises it didn't mean to make and doesn't want to keep, which is why much of the material posted so far seems a little shallow.
Nevertheless, I think it's noteworthy that Facebook has felt the privacy backlash strongly enough that it is joining forces with attorneys general to promote Internet privacy. And even if the information is nothing new, it never hurts to have things available in a variety of locations and formats. What do you guys think of these measures? Useless, shallow PR, or a sign that Facebook is really trying to be more proactive and transparent about privacy?
It's a fascinating situation with Facebook. People want to have a forum in which to post their background, thoughts, activities, pictures, etc. They want this forum to include hundreds (or thousands) of "friends," many of whom are barely acquaintances.
ReplyDeleteOh, and they want this all for free. While not letting companies "infringe" on their privacy (the privacy they've already given up to a great extent by making the information available to tons of other people).
I just don't get it. Perhaps I'm just a couple years too old?
Seth, I think privacy backlash against facebook comes largely from how much it has changed since it's inception in 2004. I joined facebook in college just a few months after it launched. There were no advertisements, no photo function, and it was available only to students at certain colleges with valid school email addresses. All of the expectations of privacy that early adopters had when we joined (that our parents, future employers, internet voyeurs, and advertisers would not have access to our content) are void; what we have now is not what we initially signed up for. So I think that the consistent erosion of previously held privacy expectations, rather than any particular element of the current facebook privacy system, is why facebook is singled out for a backlash.
Delete