LIVEdigitally

Tag Archives: facebook

Solution to Facebook Feed Problem: Trust Your Users

Posted on by

Facebook is constantly “tweaking” their news feed algorithm – the thing that determines what you see. The current rules seem to be:

  1. Baby photos
  2. Pictures of food
  3. Pictures of exotic locations
  4. Updates from people you rarely interact with
  5. More baby photos, in case you missed some
  6. The stuff you actually find interesting

I don’t need to visit the neighborhood psychic to make a simple predication: Facebook cannot possibly make all users happy, no matter how much they tweak.

Personally I’ve pretty much abandoned the ‘book, but as I talk to people who use it more than I do, I’ve noticed a simple common theme running across them. Everyone looks at Facebook a little differently. To some it’s a way to stay in touch with anyone they’ve ever met. To others its a vital communications tool. Another friend of mine calls it a digital “locker room”.  I can go on at length, but the only thing I’ve learned is there’s literally no way to define Facebook consistently. And if its users can’t do it, neither can the company.

So instead of continuously reworking the magic algorithm (and upsetting the revenue generators while they’re at it), Facebook should switch strategies, and follow the same things that the audio/video industry figured out a long while ago: create some feed profile archetypes, and let the users take control.

What does CATS do???

What does CATS do???

Most of the time, we leave the TV in the default profile (which, by the way, you should never, ever do), and it works just fine (because you don’t know what you should be seeing).  So Facebook could do the same thing:

Of course, includes C.A.T.S.!

Of course, includes C.A.T.S.!

The default could be the ever-changing-tweaky-awesome-algorithm-of-magic, which is fine. It would then be easy for the user to change their View of Facebook to reflect what they want to see. It wouldn’t prevent Facebook from running ads, nor neglect the evilness of Boosts, but would probably make everyone’s life in and out of the industry just a wee bit easier.

Even my car stereo from the 90s had an equalizer…

Facebook’s Brand Extortion Perception Problem

Posted on by

extortionI originally read Eat24’s “breaking up with Facebook” post via Zite and it echoed so true, I shared it with a lot of folks I know. I wasn’t planning to blog anything, but wrote such a long comment to Mathew Ingram’s piece, I thought, hey, why not – let’s blog this one!

I don’t think anyone’s complaining about signal-to-noise, or even paying to have reach. I’ve never heard a brand complain about running Facebook ads. I think they are complaining about the following:

Facebook users are instructed to Like brands to get updates from them. There is no mention to users as to how to control frequency of said updates, nor any disclosure about brands *having to pay* to reach them.

This is at best unfortunately disingenuous. At worst its deliberately misleading.

What makes it all much, much worse, IS the tweaking of algorithm. If you were managing a brand’s Facebook page, you’ve noticed a steady drop in every single stat/category – unless, of course, you pay. This too is not disclosed to brands. As a result, it certainly appears that Facebook initially made it free & easy for brands to get “hooked” on posting to Facebook, and then, without warning, came along and said brands would then need to pay for the same reach they previously enjoyed.

Now we can certainly remain positively-minded and call this “evolution of a model” – but it sure comes across a lot like extortion. And when Facebook replies with callous comments, it does nothing but reinforce that perception.

Personally, if I were running a brand, I’d make every effort possible to create a funnel FROM my Facebook page to *anything else*. Email newsletters, Twitter accounts, etc – all services where the expectation/understanding of how brands are positioned *to consumers* is clear. The problem I see for Facebook is I’m not the only one thinking this way – it’s an increasing sentiment and one they should stem the tide of.

I’d suggest they start by fixing 3 things:

  1. Inform Users that Liking a brand on Facebook is not the same as subscribing to a newsletter. It’s an indication of taste, and occasionally that brand may appear in a Wall feed.
  2. Guarantee Something to brands so they can make meaningful long term plans. I think a lot of brand managers would feel better about betting on Facebook if they could provide guaranteed plans of any kind – I wonder how many people have had to tell their boss that their reach dropped 90% without anyone knowing how/why.
  3. Enable Subscribing to Brands for end-users. I understand Facebook controls the overall algorithm, but how about letting a user take control of some components? This could be a paid service to the brand – whatever – but if I *want* to get every update from a Reebok, Nike, NextGuide, Eat24 – shouldn’t I be able to?

My New Year's Tech Resolution: Quitting Real-Time

Posted on by

Let’s take a long trip back in time.  Let’s remember a world where you were running a little late for a dinner date with friends, and you just showed up a bit late, no texts.  You got to the restaurant and didn’t check-in on Facebook, Yelp, or FourSquare (oh, and you didn’t even use Yelp to find the restaurant, or double-check that it has 4 stars, you just heard about it from a friend).  When the menu arrived, you read it, picked the item(s) that looked good, and placed your order, and if you wanted to know what was the most popular, you asked the waiter.  While waiting for the food, you drank wine and chatted with your friends.  When the meal arrived, you didn’t take a picture of it (or apply a filter) and shared with others.  If the service was lousy, you told the manager, not your Followers or Friends.  When you finished up the meal, you drove home, without using crowd-sourced GPS to get there.  And as a final note, at no point in the meal did you get interrupted by others sharing equally unimportant minutia with you, but if they really *really* needed to track you down, maybe you got a call.

If you are under 25 and reading this, the above probably sounds like a nightmare, but trust me, it wasn’t.

I think it’s time to admit that living in “real-time” is a bit of a disaster, and there’s tons of studies arising that lend evidence to social media (among other things) as problematic to society (here’s a funny take, but full of facts on the topic).  But you really don’t need the studies, just some common sense.  We’ve evolved over millions of years (or, as they teach in several US States – a few thousand plus some fairy dust) and until the last half a decade, the only thing that was really crucial to do in real-time was running from sabre-tooth tigers, which we were actually pretty good at.

Since I started writing this a few minutes ago I’ve received two texts and one IM – every one of which disrupted my writing and thinking.  Thankfully I had already closed my email client (something I plan to do much more frequently), and I have push notifications OFF for Facebook and Email on my phone.  But that’s a core to it: we’ve somehow made ourselves constantly interruptible, and I can’t see how anything good comes of it.  How do you think deeply on anything if your pocket is buzzing, the corner of your screen is flashing, and other little whooshing and tweeting sound effects keep rolling by.

If you are reading this and thinking “that guy’s just an old-fuddy-duddy” (which, to be fair, no young person today would ever actually say), and you are also patting yourself on the back because YOU are a great multitasker, go take a break from this piece, google “multitasking myths” (or just read this) and then come on back.  Bummer, eh?

And it’s not just about getting stuff done, as that too is just massively overrated.  It’s about a lack of peace and calmness. When do we take time anymore just to do nothing.  Even standing in line for a coffee (which is, of course a take out coffee, since there’s no time to just sit in a cafe and enjoy a hot cup of coffee in a real cup) everyone’s on their phones, doing stuff.  The human brain actually needs time, every day, just to do nothing and process all of the events that are transpiring (great article here on “doing nothing”).

So what am I doing?  Focusing on purposeful activity, single-tasking, and shutting down virtually anything that expects me to deal with it imminently, as there are truly very few events which can transpire that I must reply to in real-time.  Somehow I doubt this will negatively impact either my professional or personal life in any way.   This doesn’t mean I won’t use services like Yelp, Twitter, Facebook, IM, and the like – it just means I’m getting a lot more comfortable turning them off for long stretches.

My focus in 2013: Enjoying the moments, and having them for myself – not others.  Enjoying the view, not the retweets of the photos. Enjoying the funny/cute/silly kids, not worrying about grabbing the camera, nor counting the likes or comments.  Enjoying walking into an unknown restaurant, ordering anything I like, getting delighted by it, and telling a friend about it some other time.  Sorry real-time, I’m pushing pause.

Path: To Trust or Not to Trust?

Posted on by

privacy fail

In a nutshell: Path, a facebook-like social networking app, recently found themselves in hot water after a programmer discovered they’re uploading your entire address book to their Web servers when you use it.  Mike Arrington’s proposed solution is they should “nuke” all their data (and as disclosure, he’s an investor in the company).  My initial reaction is this is absolutely correct, but doesn’t necessarily address my real concern – moving forward, can I actually decide to trust Path or not?

I am in the “no photos of my kids on Facebook” camp.  Why?  Because Facebook has demonstrated a fairly deliberate motive to not keep my data private.  The company actually believes privacy is “Dead” so why would they even care about this kind of a thing?  They don’t, and that’s their decision, and since I think privacy is alive and well, I make the (easy) choice not to share anything about my children there (for so many reasons, but here’s one if you need it).  Enter Path.

When I first tried Path (and by the way, it’s one of the most beautiful apps I’ve seen for my iPhone), it seemed fairly clear they were pretty dedicated to privacy and your “real” social network.  Initially you were limited to 50 friends, and all sharing happened within the confines of the app itself.

Now, the 50 friends limit is up to 150, the app enables sharing to Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms, and, lo and behold, there’s a privacy fail.

One can quickly look back to Facebook and say “privacy fail = no big deal”, unless, of course, your value proposition is around privacy!

As they say, it takes a lifetime to build trust, and mere moments to utterly destroy it.

Path is at a crossroads.  They must decide what they are, and what their stance on privacy is, and they must do it imminently.  If they want to be “the social network you can trust”, they have that opportunity.  But they are on the verge of squandering it.  Which leaves them as “the social network that’s not Facebook or Google+” and in that mode, I can’t imagine them doing more than just eking it out if they continue down this… wait for it… path.

I’d love to see Dave Morin (Path’s CEO) use this moment to step up, make a public statement on what the company’s vision is and what they stand for.  I for one hope they don’t choose… poorly.

Why User 111091089527727420853 Is Wrong About Google+

Posted on by

Scobleizer doesn't have quite a "ring" to it...

Wondering who that is?  Here’s the link, and just for fun, I’ll try to get through the whole post without otherwise identifying him.  Oh who am I kidding, it’s the infamous Scobleizer, Robert Scoble.  He recently wrote a post on why he’s betting on Google+.  Here are some key reasons, and I believe they are represented fairly in context:

What I’m noticing is Google+ gets the best stuff first. And this is “with no one on it.” (That claim cracks me up, a new post shows up every 20 seconds, 24 hours a day, and that’s with following only 5,000 people here)

My videos get more views after a month, due to Google and other search engines, than they do in the first day (which is when you’d see them on social networks).

Google+ items are the best way to get my media into Google search. I’m already seeing that. Now that there’s a search engine here on Google+ it’s even a bigger deal.

How do you best capture the EMOTION of your time? Blogging? Not for me anymore. Tweeting? Not for me anymore (I will continue being there, mostly to let people who won’t leave that system know what I’m doing and where I’m doing it — it has turned into a UI for my Facebook and Google behaviors). Facebooking? Yes. I’m still there and will be for forseeable future at http://facebook.com/robertscoble

But other than that, what is my blog for? Monetization? Nope. My bosses are very willing to pay me even if I give up my blog completely. Branding? Does having a big logo help anyone? Really?

I think I can summarize his arguments into the following statement: Google+ is a great content discovery tool for both content consumers and products, and a personal blog and Twitter don’t capture enough emotion and conversation.  And I think he’s right — for Robert Scoble, and possibly a handful of others — and I can further understand why they have the passion for the site.  I’d argue, strongly, that for the majority of other people, and not just mainstream users but technically sophisticated ones as well, Google+ is utterly lacking the experience consumers want.  It doesn’t have my actual friends in it, nor does it seem to have the features that they will want (and they’ve reinvented the use of the + button, and there aren’t multithreaded conversations, and and and).  But I’ll instead just do the counter to Robert’s key points above.

First, it’s my assertion that most people don’t much care about finding “the best stuff” nor do they care about the speed at which they find it.  To my friend Robert, it’s a very important thing, which is understandable given the nature of his career.  Most people, however, are consuming a trickle of content, and are not living in “real time”.  Most people found out about Michael Jackson dying, Steve Jobs resigning, and the Japanese tsunami many many hours after the events, with only a tiny fraction of us in the few seconds or minutes after it was announced.  Considering the availability of blogs, twitter feeds, and other streams, if the mainstream really wanted to consume more stuff in real-time, we’d already see much higher spikes in traffic to some of these sources.  Google+ being “best” or “fastest” is one of those situations where “good enough” beats great by a long shot, and this isn’t going to send it users.

If I run fast enough, I'll have all the news!

Robert’s next two points have to do with getting his content to a wider audience – I’ll keep this point short and sweet: the vast majority of people rarely create content that they share with the general public.

Next up is creating emotion – I don’t mean to sound too harsh here, but the “emotional fabric” of Google+ is roughly on par to that of a sheet of loose leaf paper, maybe slightly less.  Google+ is about as bland and expressionless an environment as I have seen online, it’s only slightly more “warm” than their search results.  Facebook is unquestionably a better experience from this perspective, and as clever as the Googlers are, incorporating the warmth it’d take to create this kind of environment is simply beyond their DNA.

Let's just put it this way, in the movie version, they get Costner to play Google+

Lastly, on what is a blog for?  It’s about identity.  It’s only because of the “.com” that Robert grew an identity as Scobleizer (like it or not).  If a random person were to hear about Robert Scoble and decide he wanted to learn more about him, read his works, etc, he’s going to end up at his personal identity site.  Which is, at present, his blog.  In the future if it’s a smorgasbord of content distributed across the blog, YouTube, Building43, Google+, Facebook, and the occasional tweet, he’s diluting his brand.  Now luckily for Robert, he already has a brand, and he can really push the limits of sites like G+ and Facebook to accommodate his following behaviors.  But again, none of this ties into the identity of a random individual online, who is, like it or not, probably based on Facebook, with occasional presences on Twitter, Yelp, and other sites.

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t question if Robert himself is getting a lot, at present, out of Google+, it’s clear he is.  But I’m shocked he’s betting the future on it.  I feel like we saw this play out once before, back in the FriendFeed days.  At the time, he was warned by Michael Arrington not too invest too heavily in that service. And just because “it’s Google” isn’t enough to be certain of permanence, in fact Google’s killed quite a few products recently.  And if Google+ really becomes a “ghost town” that the founders themselves aren’t interested in participating in, I wonder how long it can survive.

When Will Facebook Fail?

Posted on by

Just like governments, mixing “creativity” with “banking”, taking naked pictures of yourself and hoping they won’t end up on the Internet, and well, this stuff, tech companies have a certain inevitable amount of failure built-into them.  Sure, IBM, Xerox and Motorola have existed for many decades, and both Microsoft and Intel still have dominant positions, but if we really think about the “powerhouses” in technology today (Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Apple), they are all fairly young (I’m using the argument that Apple effectively reinvented itself in the late 1990s).  And if we look ahead even 10 years, it’s hard to argue those four will hold they same positions they do today.

Little known secret? Sony guts.

Of the four, I’d personally assess Google and Facebook as “most vulnerable” to obsolescence (just a hunch, I’m sure I’ll be ridiculed in the commentary for such a statement), and with the points made on “why Facebook’s the new Yahoo!” by Mike Elgan and Mathew Ingram, I thought I’d write up a little somethin’.

First and foremost, I see Facebook as in no way similar to Yahoo!  Not even a little bit, I’d barely even figure out how to compare the two companies (other than the “.com” at the end of their URLs).  The key thing, beyond whatever “Facebook.com” is all about, is that Facebook is unarguably the most well-distributed and deeply integrated service on the Internet.  According to Nielsen, Facebook users spent 53 billion minutes in May 2011 using the site – and this does not count Facebook-integrated features on other websites.  The Facebook “social graph” is at/near/above 700 million users at this point.  That’s a lot of the Internet.  A lot.

My God. It's Full of Likes!

I don’t see Facebook dying due to “stale technology” – they aren’t about technology (other than scaling, etc).  They aren’t about UI/UX (tip to FB: the “clickable thing” in an update should be the action/verb, not the user nor target/noun).  Most of the typical norms of a website’s laws of gravity simply don’t apply to them, due to the massive inertia they’ve built with their userbase. Further, the inertia of existing social graphs make growth of Google+ and Twitter effectively irrelevant – I think speculation that “Facebooking” will shift to a different social network is extremely hard to substantiate.

I used to take the “cool club in town” position on Facebook, and the moment it wasn’t “new” and instead full of B+T crowds, it’s popularity would sink and people would move on.   But I don’t think this argument holds up anymore, Facebook is too popular in too many demographics and the “cool kids” are “over” the fact that their lame parents are there as well.  It’s like the mall – just because Dad’s shopping at Eddie Bauer isn’t stopping the utes from hanging out in the food court.  I know it too is easily picked apart, but I think the mall argument works really well as a parable for Facebook.

Why does the one in the middle look so. much. older?

When you want to open a Gap, and you want customers, you find a mall.  Orange Julius? Mall.  Crappy replica furniture Bombay Company? Malls.

What’s the online equivalent of that?  Facebook, Likes, Facebook Connect, etc.  Facebook is the way brands are engaging with customers online.  And this is just making them even stickier.

I just hope there's a kiosk with a crazy lady selling mystical gems.

So how might Facebook fall?  A few thoughts…

  1. Massive shift to mobile interactions – Facebook’s weakest point at present is its mobile presence.  If the world continues its mobile/social/web path, I believe Facebook has less to offer that ingrains it so deeply in the traditional browser/web world.  Without the stickiness across mobile apps (especially with the iOS shift to Twitter and Android’s inevitable equivalent with Google+), they could be highly vulnerable.
  2. Massive revolt on social networking – At present, our society is unfortunately radically focused on narcissism and fulfilling ego problems.  This may (please, please, please!) change, in which case folks’ll have much less desire to share every (useless) nuance of their (mundane) lives with their friends/acquaintances/people they kinda met once.  If these patterns ever emerge, you can put Facebook at the top of the chopping block as it’ll become the target of said pushback.
  3. Massive elongated platform failure – Whether its by hackers or internal problems, a significant outage of Facebook and its related services could cause things to unravel in a significant way.  I’d wager that if a Facebook Connect downtime prevents users from logging into websites/apps for more than a few days could cause the digital equivalent of a bank panic by both the web services and the end-users themselves.
  4. Massive rapid shift to post-PC platforms – Similar to (1) above, if the shift from a computer-based world to a tablet iPad, phone, connected TV, and other device world happens, and Facebook can’t provide the same “glue”, they’ll be vulnerable.
  5. Massive privacy breach – When I say massive in this case, I don’t just mean Facebook makes some (typically) poor decision regarding consumer rights/privacy, I mean something really awful happens, and its very public, and its entirely due to Facebook.  Like, huge act of terrorism on highly visible people entirely tied to something that was Facebook’s fault.
  6. Unknown – This would be the deux ex machina of today’s post – something otherwise unpredictable comes along and clobbers them over the head.

It’s hard to predict the end of giants or eras.  But that they will fall and whither away is predictable.  Curious to hear any other people’s thoughts on the topic in the comments below!

GIVING NOTICE: I'm reclaiming Facebook for personal use

Posted on by

According to Facebook, I have over 400 friends.  According to the number of people with whom I share personal things, go out for drinks, have over for dinner, call to catch up, and otherwise consider “Friends”, that number is off by a long shot.  So I’m going to fix it, and I’ll explain why.

I consider myself quite a social, yet private person (yes, privacy matters, and is not going away anytime soon).  I speak at a good number of public events, am decently well known in the tech industry, and am generally “out there”.  But I don’t like to share my personal life with everyone, partially because I don’t think everyone cares, but mostly because I consider my life private.  I neither need nor want “the world” to know whether I go for a bike ride with my kids, have a date night with the wife, catch up with an old friend over a beer, or any other “regular living” activity.  But it’s deeper than that.

I firmly resent the notion that I am supposed to have to include anyone and everyone I’ve ever met into my personal life, and even if it’s considered an industry faux pas, I simply don’t care anymore.  I have plenty of vehicles for communicating anything remotely work/tech/industry related, and plan to continue to use them.  Facebook, for me, is supposed to be my personal network, not my professional one.

So here’s my new Facebook friend policy:

  • Actual Friends, not “friendly acquaintances”
  • Current Friends, not “people I kinda knew in high school”
  • Work people I go out with socially, not “someone I met at a conference and exchanged business cards”
  • etc

In the next few days, I’ll be UNfriending anyone who doesn’t make the above list.  This might sound harsh or alienating, but I like to live my life assuming everyone has enough self-esteem.  I don’t look at this as rejection, and I hope anyone who gets unfriended doesn’t think of it that way either – it’s not.  Just because I like someone and have a professional relationship with them doesn’t mean we’re Friends.

While I might be an “early rejector” I fundamentally believe I won’t be the last, and most folks will come around the conclusion that they need to separate out their personal lives from the professional. While there will be many who have some blend (I believe I’ll be in that camp),  It really never should’ve gotten so far out of hand in the first place. I hope my actions can help others who are feeling the same way, but scared of the potential backlash.

11 Things You Should Never Do Online

Posted on by

Did you know you could lose insurance benefits from putting photos online?  Or that a Tweet can put you in jail?  Or that the FBI might be friending you on Facebook?  Or that even brand-new service Chatroulette isn’t truly anonymous? I’ve blogged recently on my concerns about privacy trends, and it’s quite the hotly debated topic these days.

I see two primary reasons why you shouldn’t do something online:

  • Personal Harm/Loss
  • Future Regret

So without further adieu, here’s 11 Things You Should Never Do Online!

  1. Show your goods. One would think this would be obvious. One would imagine that an individual would not normally choose to show their private parts to the entire world, presuming they are not in the adult entertainment industry. It took me less than a minute on Chatroulettemap to find a picture of a naked guy, and his hometown (pictured here, safely edited by me). Here are some NSFW pictures found on Facebook. Why shouldn’t you do this? How about “decency” or “self-respect”? I wouldn’t even call it prudish to say there is a reason for the phrase “private parts” and some things are simply best left out of the public eye. Leave it to the pro’s, people.  Nobody’s going to be walking around when they are 80 years old saying to themselves “I sure regret not showing my penis to the entire world.”  Unless they have some kind of exceptional penis, that is.
  2. Meet a random stranger in a non-public location. As a child I was taught not to get into cars with strangers.  Of course I was also using public transportation as of age 8, but I don’t think that’s too contradictory.  We’ve heard numerous stories of people meeting strangers via sites like Craigslist, then bad things happen.  I have no problem with online dating services, but use some common sense people.  How about having 2-3 dates in public before you decide to even reveal your home address (assuming you haven’t done so already online – see more below)?  Why shouldn’t you do this? Pretty much goes without saying – and while there will always be creeps and they will always find methods of doing terrible things, but how about not enabling them to occur so easily?
  3. Publicize travel plans. Be it foursquare, brightkite, gowalla, plancast, tripit, dopplr or anything else, the concept that an individual would specifically tell anybody in public that they aren’t at home is something I personally find mind-boggling.  Whether it’s a simple burglary (or much much worse), there’s no greater bait I can think of for a wrong-doer. And to think that all criminals are simply too stupid to figure this out is somewhere between ignorant and elitist. Heck, teenagers in the UK find empty swimming pools with Google Earth, and thieves last year used it to find and steal koi fish from backyards.  Why shouldn’t you do this? It doesn’t take extreme paranoia or a DVD collection of Law and Order to come to the simple conclusion that these activities are asking for trouble.  Combine public records with services like plancast and twitter, and you have the equivalent of a “how-to rob me” service that you are proactively choosing to use – it’s gonna happen.
  4. Share identity-revealing data. Over 9 million Americans have identity theft issues every year. Why on Earth would you make it easier for them?  Further, one of the easiest methods of gaining access to an identity is through simple human error and naivete.  If you put personal information, like say your credit card activities, proactively into the public eye, you are asking for problems.  And unlike physical thieves (per the above point), phishers currently use technology to steal information.  You want to put your phone number in public? Fine! Get a Google Voice account, set up a redirect, and use that.  But don’t put the same number you have to authenticate important personal records! Why shouldn’t you do this? Actually this should be the opposite question – why oh why would you put private data out in public? If I can’t get you to stop buffoonery, fine, but at least be on the watch for things that can impact your finances and credit score!
  5. Ignore privacy requests/needs of others. It’s perfectly legal to take pictures of people in public. It’s also perfectly legal to put those pictures in the public spectrum (so long as you aren’t profiteering from their likeness).  But that doesn’t mean you have to.  Some people prefer to keep their lives completely out of the public eye, and they have the right to do so (despite what many social media bloggers would like to say).  Just because you choose to publicize your life doesn’t mean everyone else has to as well.  Furthermore, and more specifically, parents should rethink what pictures they put online in public or semi-public locations.  Maybe your kids won’t want those pictures to be accessible one day when they are older – and I can guarantee they’ll have a tough time taking them down.  The oh-so-cute moments in the bath might be funny to reveal at a wedding or bar mitzvah (both private events, mind you), but how about during their sophomore year in high school, to the whole class? Not so much. Why shouldn’t you do this? It’s inconsiderate – and that’s enough of a reason.
  6. Reveal vices. My healthcare company is raising our rates 35% this year – despite no claims or major changes of status.  Their business, in a nutshell, is to profit as greatly as possible, which they accomplish by (1) raising rates, and (2) giving out minimal claims/benefits.  I will say the following unbiased and bluntly: it is in their interest to find evidence of you smoking, drinking, and otherwise acting recklessly because it lets them profit more. If I were you, I’d make sure there were no tweets, status updates, or anything else containing “So drunk I almost fell down the stairs” or “Onto my 2nd pack today. Boy these Marlboros are smooth” etc.  Why shouldn’t you do this? If you don’t think insurance companies, healthcare providers, or other “big brother-like” organizations will use social technologies to raise rates or otherwise increase profits, you are just fooling yourself.  Drink, smoke, be merry – and just enjoy it with the people you are actually spending the time with (they’ll probably appreciate it too).
  7. Mock those you may do business with. A famous PR exec once tweeted disparagingly about a magazine his firm had to pitch.  The editor in chief saw the tweet.  An ad agency salesman on his way to pitch a client openly mocked the city in which that client lived. The client saw the tweet.   Disparaging a potential (or existing) client is generally speaking, not the way one gets more business from said client.  The whole concept of doing things in public means anyone might just see them – including the people you are trying to get to spend money on you. Why shouldn’t you do this? How about… “livelihood”?
  8. Sound like a schmuck. Per the above point, you never know who is going to see the words you write. Your “witty banter” with an old high school friend on Facebook might not sound so clever to a potential employer.  I’ll be the first to admit that I am a cynic and an outspoken one, and I am certain this colors peoples’ opinions of me. But I also do my best to sound objective and educated about whatever topics I’m talking about.  While I’m sure I’ve tweeted things I shouldn’t have, or left comments on blogs that could be misconstrued, I generally make a concerted effort to consider my commentary and how it would be interpreted by a complete stranger (though I could still use improvement myself).Why shouldn’t you do this? Your words will come back to haunt you – how about just not saying them in the first place?
  9. Publicize your partying or let your friends put up embarrassing photos/videos of you. The most famous example I’ve found so far involves a swimmer and an arbitrarily-banned substance. Whoever took that picture is, in a word, a jerk. Not as big of a jerk as whomever made this happen, but a pretty big jerk nonetheless. But when you compare it to the amazing amount of inappropriate stuff you can easily find with simple Google searches, you really start to wonder if the entire concept of self-respect has gone out the window.Why shouldn’t you do this? A future employer? A future spouse? Your kids one day? Your grandkids? How about anyone you want to not massively unimpress one day.
  10. Be inconsistent with your real life claims. If you call in sick, stay offline! Let’s face it, lying consistently can be challenging – it’s something you really have to work hard at. So if you are going to call in sick, you probably shouldn’t update your Facebook status or tweet or do anything else that conflicts with your claim. I recall the classic “which tire?” tale from university lore, only dramatically more impactful with public timelines and social presences.  You should also know that when you take pictures and upload them to sites like Picasa or Flickr, the actual day/time is logged in that photo somewhere as well. Why shouldn’t you do this? Hopefully you don’t need me to tell you not to lie or otherwise make false claims in the office space or personal life.  But if you are going to, try to tow the line with your online presence as well.
  11. Assume you are not being recorded. We decided at the office to try playing Chatroulette last month. Every time we used it, we recorded our session (using freely available screen capture tools), just in case something funny/outrageous happened (and it did, and no, I won’t be sharing with the group).  Your web history is recorded by Google (if you are logged in).  Facebook knows everything you’ve done.  Most Web sites store your IP address along with the comment you leave.  The Internet Archive stores copies of just about everything. Your cookies have privacy flaws. When you do something on the Internet, it is there to stay. Don’t forget it!

The funny thing (if there is one) on the above list is if you were to ask your grandparents if you should do any of those things, they’d give you one of those “what’s wrong with you boy?” looks.  But instead here you are reading my blog because it’s actually a topic.  Them kids today…

Your Privacy Online: The Internet's Greatest Bait and Switch

Posted on by

There was a time when things like decency, self-respect, and privacy mattered, and that time was not too long ago. I’m not going to spend this post lamenting modern society abandoning the concept of self-respect, poise, decency, and other things which seem practically alien in our show-all, tell-all, midriff-sporting, trampstamp-pride (yeah, I hate the word too, but it’s appropriate) oriented culture. I may seem like one heck of an old fogie, but I’m talking about a time I remember that was less than 15, maybe even 10 years ago! With regards to the “living near the bottom” mindset America seems stuck in, I think (hope) it’s just a natural cycle and it will just get better in time. But when it comes to the privacy topic, I’m more than disappointed, I’m near outraged. And I’m going to point some fingers.

It’s hard to say when and where we decided to give up our rights to privacy online. Note that I’m focusing to the online world, and have no commentary regarding people’s ability to do things like steal credit card receipts, dumpster dive, or other methods of specifically targeting an individual, as these take concerted and directed effort. One could argue the entire concept of the “social web” might be in exact defiance of personal privacy. Some of the early players (this is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all things social on the web!), in semi-chronological order:

  • Geocities – instead of, well, not really existing online, you can have a home page! Unquestionably the first time people chose to give up personal privacy for some flirtation with Internet fame – but – it was at a time when there was little “networking” from one site to another, so a given person’s home page actually was it’s own disconnected “island” on the Internet (as opposed to the inherent connected nature of services like Facebook). Geocities deserves special mention for being the first (but far from last) time an individual could not only create their own customized page, but make it extremely ugly and hard to read. Privacy impact: moderate.
  • Delicious – instead of keeping your favorite bookmarks to yourself, share them with the world! The reality of the potential harm here is fairly low, as one still has a local bookmark capability through the Web browser AND one can easily choose not to share a bookmark they don’t want shared. Privacy impact: negligible.
  • MyBlogLog – instead of being able to read a blog post in relative anonymity, a “footprint” is left of the trail you have as you surf various blogs. Again, this is extremely opt-in, however, the mere enablement of this plug-in on a blog meant a third-party could specifically “follow” you as a unique Web surfer. Privacy impact: low.
  • Flickr – instead of having to manually share your photos with your friends/family, automatically upload your photos into the public eye unless you specify otherwise. Flickr represented a massive shift in thinking, and I’d personally argue it ushered in the concept of “live in public” to the masses. Example search for pictures that are probably going online without consent of those who are actually in the pictures. Privacy impact: major.
  • Friendster – technically not the first attempt at social networking, but the first one to bring it to a wide spectrum of users. I honestly don’t even remember what I did on Friendster, other than befriend the fake users others had so much fun creating (except for the management team, who clearly thought using the Internet for anything fun was a bad idea). Friendster marked the first time people really paid attention to “numbers of friends” as a metric of importance (ah, the implacable human ego). Privacy impact: moderate-to-low.
  • YouTube – Take Flickr up a notch, by enabling anyone, no matter how dreary and boring, to have their own special place to upload pirated commercial personal videos. Prior to YouTube one was judged purely on their attractiveness (based on the best-looking picture of themselves ever taken, regardless of how long ago), but now we could take every embarrassing, awkward, and goofy moment we have, and immortalize ourselves online with it. It didn’t take long for YouTube to be the haven for people falling off skateboards, failed catapult launches, or (one of my personal favorites) take the video of your friend accidentally hurting herself and further embarrass her by putting it on the Internet – but don’t worry, she didn’t bleed or anything (now that is a great example of friendship!). Privacy impact: major.
  • MySpace – It’s like GeoCities, but now with 10 times the ugly, and more ways to connect than ever before. Originally started as a way for bands to connect with their fans (and for fans to connect with each other), MySpace evolved (or devolved) into a haven for bizarre methods of self-representation, a lustfulness for comment-writing and a bizarre desire to have as many friends as is humanly possible. Today it’s a bit of a “black sheep” in the social networking world, but still has millions of people sporting the most outrageous color schemes (oh look, it’s red-on-red, hey thanks!) and online “bling” imaginable. Privacy impact: massive.
  • Blogging – While there’s no specific technology at play here, the notion that one and all could have a “web log” aka a public diary became very in vogue in the latter half of the aughts (you know, the decade that just ended?). Blogs were key to creating the illusion that one’s deeper thoughts should be shared, in written form, with the world. Since there’s actually a decent amount of work required in order to blog, and most blogs are rapidly abandoned, on an individualized basis it’s not a big deal – except for those who go overboard. And yes, I do get the irony of this blog post. Privacy impact: minor-to-major (highly self-inflicted!).
  • Zoominfo – You might not have heard of this one, but ZoomInfo.com uses all the content it can find about you to build a profile of who you are (or might be) – screenshot is below. On the plus side, they will allow you to effectively delete your profile, and it’s really focused on your business “identity”, but if you ever needed an example of how scary the concept of being stalked online is, this is the one. To be clear, the company itself is not doing anything wrong, they are simply finding information about you through completely publicly available sources, that’s the scary part. Privacy impact: N/A – they themselves merely aggregate stuff.
  • Twitter – Without analyzing use of the service, Twitter is just a “public update” one can make, in 140 characters or less. Not a big deal. However, the cultural shift one is inclined towards after deep adoption of the use is where the problems show up. For those who actually use the service (which is not the majority of Twitter’s users), there is a sensation wherein it becomes more and more challenging not to share things. And for those with poor critical-moment-decision-making skills AND a lack of extreme discipline, Twitter is the ultimate tool in accidental self-representation online. Self-censorship is a difficult thing, and a tool like Twitter makes it way too easy to accidentally tell a lot of people something you’d rather have kept to yourself (and yes, we can make the argument that people should just be better about how they Tweet, but that’s like blaming bullets for shooting deaths). Privacy impact: massive.
  • Foursquare, Gowalla, and other location-based services – Take Twitter (above), now apply it specifically to enable you to proactively tell the general public where you are at a given moment. This plus the free white pages is about the easiest way in history to explicitly tell thieves when your house will be unoccupied. Granted it’ll take a bit before the average criminal gets quite so sophisticated, but the mere concept of it should be giving you the willies. And if it doesn’t, check out Blippy. Privacy impact: so high it’s amazing anybody uses it.
  • Facebook – The grand-daddy of them all. Over 300 million people use Facebook today, one could call it an individual’s “hub” of personality on the Internet, not to mention the best place to buy fake farm animals and even throw sheep at each other – awesome. Now when Facebook first launched, it was for (and from) college kids only – us old folks couldn’t even see what crazy fun was ensuing inside the closed doors. They then opened it up for anyone to use, however all activities were “private” within Facebook – only your “friends” (a term the service has effectively destroyed) could see your activities. This notion of privacy is what got people really using Facebook to share personal moments en masse. Facebook then, and this is the worst part, threw that precedent out the window. Facebook not only shares your content, updates, photos, friend lists, and everything else in public, it does so with the entire world! Privacy impact: words don’t describe.

I want to make sure I explain my premise again properly, as by now I’m sure some people just think I’m a loony laggard who doesn’t “get it”. I get it. I get how we’ve been tricked. I see it very clearly. Let’s face it, Friendster was clearly the “gateway drug” which led us down the path to sharing crazy intimate details in the public eye, and thinking how it’s expected. Heck, it was an easy path to follow, and it played into so many people’s desires to feed egos – finally it could be done unilaterally! The Internet basically enabled the individual to be famous. And if it’s not clear, fame sells – and sells well. But it’s at a cost – simple google searches showed me information like prominent bloggers’ home addresses, birthdays, and other data that makes identity theft (an actual real crime) something so easy that a clever hacker could probably write a web program to do it automatically.

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg even went so far as to say something to the equivalent of “that if he were to create Facebook again today, user information would by default be public, not private as it was for years” (source). Guess what Mark – you might not be at the helms of a huge company had you made that choice. I hear a lot of industries afraid to make certain decisions because of the “slippery slope” they lead to. Well, it’s happened, and there’s really no one company to blame. Sure, each played their part, and some more aggressively/offensively than others, but let’s face it – we all got suckered in.

Please note and be aware – your privacy has been in violation for a long time. Public records show home ownership details, birth certificates, licenses, and much more. These have been available to the lowest bidder for quite a while. I view this as a different (albeit serious) issue, as none of these are opt-in privacy flaws. But just because someone can do things like dumpster dive to find your most recent credit cards statements does not by default imply that one should sign up to Blippy and voluntarily throw this information info the public eye. Further, I’ll completely acknowledge that I am just as guilty as many others for living in oversharing mode – but I guess the first step is being aware that there is a problem.

I read today (I’ve been working on this post for a while, so the timing is a little ironic coincidental) that people are starting to give up social networking for a variety of reasons – privacy being one of them. I don’t know if that’s necessary, but I think it’s certainly understandable. What I think is more important is for people to make certain choices about the public scrutiny they choose to live their lives under.

WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?

  • Make sure you are personally aware of the various nuances and ramifications of each of the services you use (for example, did you know that your status updates on Facebook will, by default, be seen not only by your network, but by their networks as well? – here are some tips for improving your Facebook privacy settings – go do them immediately upon finishing this reading).
  • Think about how your choices to proactively share can impact not only yourself, but your family, coworkers, and friends. Take into consideration that you might think it’s adorable to put up a photo of your kid in some embarrassing moment now, but they might not appreciate it when they are an adult and it’s still on the Internet (and it will be)!
  • Don’t forget about the future you – who may not want to have the world know about some incident better left in private.
  • Finally, consider your real objectives. Do you actually care about Twitter followers? Does it matter to be the Mayor of your local Starbucks? Of course not, and there’s nothing wrong with having some fun and frivolity – but remember that it all comes with a cost. When you proactively give up free information, companies are profiting from it.

Your privacy is an asset. Take care of it.

Technology Predictions for 2010

Posted on by

Every year I predict, every year I get at least one thing right. And many wrong.  But that’s the fun part, right?  This year instead of categorizing based on the technology area, I’m going to organize based on my own scale of how crazy the prediction itself is…

The No-Brainers
Stuff that is almost definitely going to happen. Except the ones that don’t…

  • Twitter growth levels off, though Twitter usage increases. I actually wouldn’t be surprised to see the churn rate equal the signup rate as I believe Twitter still has a massive problem with getting new users enchanted with the service.
  • A new version of the iPhone comes out that is incrementally better than the 3GS.
  • Google launches “Android for Set-Top Boxes” but gains little traction in the foreseeable future. (repeat from ’09).
  • CES 2010 exceeds expectations, either in the form of interesting new gadgets or industry-wide product/technology launches.
  • BlackBerry overhauls their “app store” to make it more iPhone-y.
  • Mac OSX market share continues to rise.
  • Superslim TVs (like the Samsung LEDs – drool!) become the hot category for displays.  Many of them are “connected” to various Internet services.

Sounds Feasible
Predictions that are a little more “out there” but don’t require any major convincing.

  • Zynga files to go public, and the entire “social gaming” category gets even more unbelievably outrageous.
  • Yahoo! begins some kind of realistic turnaround. They have far too much foot traffic and too many good properties to continue to fail for so long.
    • Hint to Yahoo! – reinvest in your Flickrs, Deliciouses, and other “interesting” stuff that you are good at, and stay OFF the television and other places that you are not good at.
  • One PC maker emerges from the trenches with a really well-designed laptop that actually can stand up against a Macbook enough to make people take notice. (repeat from ’09).
  • “Real-time Web” loses steam as a meme. While I’m personally very bullish on the impacts and possibilities, it’s far too niche and far too unimportant to “regular folks” to care about.
    • Probably same for “Cloud Computing”, but since everyone’s just confusing it with “The Internet” it might have more staying power.
  • Apple releases stats on iPhone/iPod/iTunes/app store that are just mind-blowing.
  • 4G/LTE networks spread faster than expected, become viably competitive to the mainstream consumer within the year.
  • The term “Social Media” finally begins to fade across all industries other than Social Media Mavens, Gurus, and Wizards.  The latter reach level 7 and learn how to cast User-Generated Fireball and Community Driven Magic Missile.
  • All non-Apple tablets are craptastic.  Ditto for touchscreen phones.
  • 3DTV gets embedded into lots and lots of TVs, much to the chagrin of consumers who don’t feel the need to look like that goofy guy in Back to the Future, even in the comfort of their own living rooms.
    • Note that in my opinion the only thing that really makes 3D “work” in the home is sports. And even that’s a long shot.

Whatcha Talkin Bout Willis?
Stuff that’s probably not going to happen, but ya never know…

  • Facebook reveals huge revenue numbers, files to go public.
  • Twitter gets acquired by Microsoft.  Yeah, I’m being specific here, but it’s the only logical acquisition, and Microsoft’s got deep enough pockets and have failed at virtually all things Internet.  In a nutshell, Ballmer wants to bring sexy back.
  • The Apple Tablet ships in 2010. Sure all the “in the know” folks are convinced this must happen, but most of them said that about 2009 (and/or that Apple would ship a netbook).
  • Some kind of flexible-display type of device is announced (might even ship).  If I had to hunch (and I of course do), it’d either come from Apple or as a new Kindle.
  • Tru2Way is announced as the new failure of openness from the FCC.
  • All versions of Rock Band and Guitar Hero in 2010 fail to exceed sales stats of 2009 or 2008.
    • Hey guys – remember how that Who Wants to be a Millionaire show was super popular? Then they started running it 4+ nights a week?  Then it moved to daytime?  There’s something called a “saturated market”.  Stop with all the specialty versions and get back to improving the base game, which you can sell add-ons to.
  • Cisco buys a few more gadget makers and technology providers in their attempt to own the Digital Home.  In each case they continue to exhibit poor timing and overpay for slightly outdated platforms.

Can I get a hit of that stuff?
Things that are just plain unrealistic, but I’m saying them anyway.  This way if they happen I can say I was the first to say them.

  • Apple does not ship a tablet. Yes, I contradict the above point, since I do think “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” holds up in general.  However, it is Apple, and this is a terrible device category, and Steve Jobs hates doing things crappily.  BTW, you really should read this piece if you are even remotely following the Apple Tablet news – it’s extremely well written and insightful.
  • Facebook buys Twitter.  It’s not really all that out there as a concept (although I’d wager the personalities behind both companies are big forces against it).  Both companies need to continue rapid growth. Both companies need to create lots of revenue.  Both companies want to be “empires”.  There are many overlapping aspects, but the combined entity could realistically “own” the social network.
  • A new game console launches.  I put this in the long-shot category because nobody is really incented to create a new console right now.  The Xbox 360 is finally hitting it’s strides; the PS3 has way too much cost to recoup, and the Wii is enjoying it’s ride.  If I had to guess, I’d wager on a 4th party entrant (Samsung?).  If one of the big three, I’d pick the next console as a “Wii HD”.
  • A “Lifestreamer” device comes to market.  It’s not quite a phone, but it’s always on, always recording, and has amazing synch with some Web service.  Never takes pictures, only video. Able to “Tag” moments.  Has real-time streaming capabilities.
    • Scoble buys units for himself and entire family. 😉
  • Microsoft (or possibly Yahoo!) goes on a major Internet services acquisition spree, picking up companies like Zoho, bit.ly, Adobe (yes, Adobe), Pandora, Evernote, UserVoice, and more.
  • The TwitterPeek is the #1 hottest selling device of the year!

That’s all folks, see you in 361 days for the results.

Note that I anticipate much snarkiness in the comments.  Have at it.

Scoring my 2009 Tech Predictions

Posted on by

I hit about 50% on my 2008 predictions, time to size up my prognosticatory (not a word) skills again. And here’s the original post (though I’ve included all the predictive content again below).

Home Gadgets/Tech

  • Microsoft opens the Xbox 360 platform even further, enables an “app store for the home” that spans well beyond games. WRONG – while there are many new features and some openness, it’s not even close to my prediction.
  • Blu-ray sputters along, but not enough conclusive evidence (in other words, revenue) happens to either shut down the format altogether, nor to get consumers to adopt it. RIGHT – stats on Blu-ray for 2009 were unimpressive.  It’ll be physical media versus the newspaper industry to see who kicks the bucket first.
  • As the FCC-mandated digital TV transition approaches, the hype machine reaches full effect and very convincing pieces try to show the plight of the very few.  After it’s all over, virtually nobody complains loudly. RIGHT – oh yeah, there was a transition last year, wasn’t there…
  • One or both of Home Automation and/or Interactive TV returns to prominence in techie chatter, but neither make any additional inroads into actual homes. WRONG – the hype machine stays in neutral
  • Pasting from 2008 predictions: Google launches “Android for Set-Top Boxes” but gains little traction in the foreseeable future. WRONG – Droid came instead…  but I’m putting this back on the list (to-come) for ’10.

Computers

  • Netbook sales grow well, but not astoundingly so.  The majority of users ignore them due to a lack of actual value present in the device (especially those of us with big grubby fingers). UNKNOWN – I left this one too vague and could go either way on it.
  • One PC maker emerges from the trenches with a really well-designed laptop with great Vista drivers that actually can stand up against a Macbook enough to make people take notice. WRONG – MacBook sales just continued to climb relative to PC Laptops instead
  • A Linux-based computer powered with a really great GUI and OpenOffice comes to market from an established brand. WRONG – although Android netbooks are supposedly coming next year, but that’s definitely not a 2009 thing.
  • USB 3.0 launches, causing massive annoyance and confusion to consumers.  I still can’t believe they didn’t give it a different name than USB.  Terrible decision. WRONG – the format launched, but nobody really cared.

Mobile Gadgets/Tech

  • More lousy wannabe touchscreen phones ship, none compete 1:1 with the iPhone. RIGHT – so very very right.
  • A really good GPS+phone combo device comes to market. WRONG – I shouldn’t have said “really good”
  • The BlackBerry Storm is rapidly replaced with some better device from RIM. RIGHT – but then again they did name it Storm again…
  • Mobile commerce replaces location-based services as the hot mobile trend. MIXED – they’re both pretty hot, but FourSquare really did charm the pants off the tech bloggers.
  • US cellular companies wage a price war, making several features (ahem, texting?) cheaper, along with better priced packages across the board. WRONG – and oligopoly enjoys another year.
  • No truly impressive Android phones ship from anyone. WRONG – the Droid and Droid Eris are both impressive (though still no iPhones – and I *have* an Eris)

Events/News

  • CES 2009 is notably smaller than 2008, yet the important stuff that goes on at the show is business as usual.  It’s all the fringe people who are absent, and the same who complain about the lack of cool new stuff at CES.  Which won’t be a surprise due to the rarity of cool new stuff actually shown at CES! RIGHT – and ditto again in 2010
  • Macworld is just the first of many shows to also announce downsizing, including Streaming Media, Web 2.0 Expo, etc.  2009 will be a bad year for the tech conference industry. RIGHT – Macworld? Streaming Media West was a ghost town. Web what.point.oh?
  • Apple introduces only evolutionary products, nothing astounding or revolutionary. Let’s face it, sooner or later the well runs dry, and this is the time for the company to expand its market.  Yes, we’ll get a new phone, laptop, and ipod, but I doubt we see anything as profound as in the past 2 years. RIGHT – although I do very much like my 27″ iMac, it’s not revolutionary.  Maybe in 2010, we’ll see.
  • A largish black monolith with dimensions 1 by 4 by 9 is discovered. RIGHT – but I can’t tell you about it.

Web/Online

  • Facebook reaches a user base of 200 hundred million users.  It’s growth ratethen  slows and the alarm bells sound loudly throughout the media, regardless of actual success metrics. MIXED – bit off more than I should’ve with that one.
  • Twitter finally announces its business model, which underwhelms everyone.  Not that it won’t be a good model, just that it will have been (wow is that passive voice or what?) built up with far more hype than can possibly be delivered. MIXED – they didn’t really announce anything specific, but are making revenue, and the hype train is unquestionably fully loaded.
  • Many “web 2.0″ companies face major shrinkage as the funds simply don’t come back to them again.  Companies with huge traffic bases or, more importantly, solid revenue models will be fine, but the rest start fading away (and they take their weird names with them) RIGHT – look around, the air’s a lot thinner these days
  • Several “prominent” blogs/bloggers retire due to a lack of revenue, exhaustion, lack of interesting new content to write about, etc. WRONG – was really expecting this to happen, but I didn’t see much of it.
  • Web 3.0 does not arrive. RIGHT – duh.

Total count:

  • RIGHT: 10 (9 without the monolith)
  • WRONG: 10
  • OTHER: 4

Not too shabby, not too overwhelming.  I’m still writing the 2010 edition, so hopefully nothing monumental will happen before I can publish it!

Okay Facebook, it's time to do the right thing…

Posted on by

You remember that feeling when you’ve done something kinda wrong, and you kinda get caught doing it, and everyone yells at you for doing it, and instead of just shrugging your shoulders, admitting you goofed, and moving on, you back yourself into a corner and fight tooth and nail for it?  As far as I can tell, this is Facebook’s situation with not removing Holocaust Denial groups.  Before I dive in, I want to thank Michael Arrington for keeping this topic alive and his ardent support of the issue.

Here are the key issues as I see them:

First, regarding Holocaust Denial.  Here’s the results of the Google search for “is holocaust denial the same as anti semitism?” The answer is a resounding YES.  Fundamentally, while there are many anti-Semites who do not deny the Holocaust, there are no Holocaust Deniers who are not anti-Semites.

Second, regarding Censorship/Freedom of Speech.  Freedom of speech is a government issue, not a private company issue.  Private companies may censor away, and they may do so legally.  Facebook can choose to do whatever they want.  Further, even free speech advocate Alan Dershowitz agrees.

Third, regarding precedent. Facebook doesn’t allow the Ku Klux Klan to have a group.  Breastfeeding women pictures are banned.  In other words, Facebook can identify hate groups and content they don’t like and has already taken it down.  This is a crucial issue to me.  Had Facebook never taken any proactive content cleansing actions in the past, I think they could sit safely on the sidelines.  Instead, they are basically taking the position that the KKK is bad, but a Holocaust Denial group is not.

Fourth, regarding actions. I’ve seen numerous commentators (on TC) ask the equivalent of “are we supposed to monitor every conversation for anti-Semitic content and delete those too? Nope. This isn’t about one-to-one discussions, nor even private groups.  This is about public groups, which rapidly turn into breeding grounds for hate crimes (which is why FB turned off the KKK’s groups).

Fifth, regarding public vs private discourse. Another issue I’ve noticed is the claim to the effect of “why bother taking down the group, this kind of hate happens anyway, and it’s better to be out in the public.”  The argument here, of course, implies that if we can see the discussions these people are having, we can keep an eye on them for potential actions they might take.  This is one of the silliest positions I can imagine taking, as if those who are about to commit hate crimes are just so unbelievably stupid they would do so in public. Utter rubbish.

I’ve been trying to rack my brain as to why Facebook would continue to maintain their position on this one.  It certainly seems odd to me that the decision-makers here really believe leaving the groups up is the right thing to do.  As I’ve looked back on other actions FB’s taken in the past, I’ve noticed one trend that seems to make the most sense in this craziness: FB doesn’t like being told what to do by anyone.  They do a (crappy) site redesign, get told by the media and users alike, and stand proud.  They take down pictures of nursing moms, get vilified by the press and women’s groups, and stand proud.  And here we are again, doing a wrong, getting caught, getting called out on it, and again, standing proud.

On one more tangent here: personally I don’t get how anyone can be proud that they are standing up for some of the worst people on Earth.  I wish they wouldn’t.  There’s enough places for hateful people to rally together and commit atrocities.  Facebook could decide they stand for the right thing, not the wrong.

I think they either need to do the right thing and take down these groups, or stop taking down the KKK groups and nursing moms pictures.  As was eloquently said, you can’t get a woman half-pregnant.