Tonight SynergyBlog received an invitation to join a group protesting Facebook’s new privacy policies. We were a little surprised, because many of our colleagues – executive types, we assure you – love Facebook!
The popular web site provides untold opportunity for younger and college-aged individuals to keep in touch. However, the Facebook-user average age is growing dramatically, with adults being their fastest growing customer segment. In fact, the site’s 35-54 year old segment grew 172.9% in 10 months between 2007 and 2008. Even the 55+ age group grew by 97% in the same time frame.
Not surprising. The site gives professionals a chance to catch up with colleagues, friends, and family without a tremendous investment of time… well, except for those Facebook addicts (you know who you are)!
What is Facebook’s new privacy policy, which will reportedly allow the popular social networking site to retain, and reuse, all user-generated content even after the account-holder cancels their account, doing to the brand?
At 11:16 p.m. there were well over 59,700 members of just one of the numerous protest groups forming on Facebook. By tomorrow morning, news outlets will likely lead with this story.
The Facebook brand will require more than an obligatory blog post from the CEO (more details below). We believe that the privacy policies of MySpace and YouTube, which protect user content after an account has been canceled is a more customer-centric approach.
Facebook had been known to actively protect the privacy of young people, and it will absolutely have to regain that mantle. SynergyBlog does not believe this new attempt at controlling user content will hold. It can’t. The brand can’t afford it… nor is it worth the fight. Our advice is to quickly perform a “mea culpa,” apologize for the misunderstanding, and move on.
Otherwise, they end up in court. According to PC World, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is getting ready to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, demanding that Facebook return to its previous policies.
A day in court arguing this is a day the Facebook brand doesn’t need.
Here are the details: According to CNet, the thrust of EPIC’s–and many others’ anger–at Facebook stems from new language in the privacy policy that grants the company seemingly perpetual control over content users post there:
“You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings….You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.
In a blog post defending the new language, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg argued that it wasn’t as onerous as people were claiming, and that:
Our philosophy is that people own their information and control who they share it with. When a person shares information on Facebook, they first need to grant Facebook a license to use that information so that we can show it to the other people they’ve asked us to share it with. Without this license, we couldn’t help people share that information.One of the questions about our new terms of use is whether Facebook can use this information forever. When a person shares something like a message with a friend, two copies of that information are created–one in the person’s sent messages box and the other in their friend’s inbox. Even if the person deactivates their account, their friend still has a copy of that message. We think this is the right way for Facebook to work, and it is consistent with how other services like email work. One of the reasons we updated our terms was to make this more clear.
In reality, we wouldn’t share your information in a way you wouldn’t want. The trust you place in us as a safe place to share information is the most important part of what makes Facebook work. Our goal is to build great products and to communicate clearly to help people share more information in this trusted environment.
But, wrote PC World, other online services, like MySpace, Twitter and YouTube, all have less strict controls over users’ content. See text from CNet below:
MySpace‘s terms of use agreement grants the company the license to use your non-private content only within MySpace-related services. Moreover–and perhaps more important–MySpace notes that once you delete something from its site, it “will cease distribution as soon as practicable, and at such time when distribution ceases, the license will terminate.”
With Twitter, the company’s terms of service state it “claim[s] no intellectual property rights over the material you provide” and that “you can remove your profile at any time by deleting your account.”
Even YouTube, owned by privacy advocate punching bag Google, limits its license to use your content at will. The license will “terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your user videos,” the service’s terms of service say.
Facebook’s never-ending lease on your online life, then, isn’t exactly the norm. Perhaps you can take comfort in the fact, though, that Facebook could change its policies again without ever telling you. “We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to change or delete portions of these terms at any time without further notice,” Facebook’s agreement says. “Your continued use of the Facebook service after any such changes constitutes your acceptance of the new terms.”
Yikes.
Update!
Facebook must be reading SynergyBlog and the thousands of other thought-leaders who have expressed angst over this privacy issue. Privacy is a matter of TRUST. We applaud Facebook for making the right choice!
From Facebook:
This group is for people to give input on Facebook’s terms of use. These terms are meant to serve as the governing document for how the service is used by people around the world.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts with us.
Here are responses to some of the things you’ve written below:
1. You own your information. Facebook does not. This includes your photos and all other content.
2. Facebook doesn’t claim rights to any of your photos or other content. We need a license in order to help you share information with your friends, but we don’t claim to own your information.
3. We won’t use the information you share on Facebook for anything you haven’t asked us to. We realize our current terms are too broad here and they make it seem like we might share information in ways you don’t want, but this isn’t what we’re doing.
4. We will not share your information with anyone if you deactivate your account. If you’ve already sent a friend a message, they’ll still have that message. However, when you deactivate your account, all of your photos and other content are removed.
5. We apologize for the confusion around these issues. We never intended to claim ownership over people’s content even though that’s what it seems like to many people. This was a mistake and we apologize for the confusion.
SynergyBlog thinks that’s a bit better… we’re watching!
It makes no sense that Facebook would risk messing up a good thing by edging in on people’s intellectual property. They had people’s trust and then they go and risk losing it; not smart.
I just can’t believe they went back on their TOS change. People are dumb if they think they are getting any privacy from Facebook or Myspace. All they are doing is voluntarily supplying valuable info to huge marketing mills. Although there are ways to communicate with privacy: anonymous sites like http://www.anonboard.com
Great post!
Bob,
We think you raise a good point with regard to honesty and transparency. Although we applaud the retraction, we are listening carefully. Watching closely. We think they understand another transgression of this kind will not be taken lightly.
I would caution you, though, Bob. Although Zuckerberg clearly meant to sweep this mistake under the rug, instead of providing full transparency, as we discuss a lot here on SynergyBlog, we as stakeholders have to be willing to allow leaders to work through the transgression (depending on the severity).
In this case, the rapidity of his turnaround was such that it’s clear his goal is to be responsive to us – the stakeholders – and that’s a good thing.
That doesn’t mean all is forgiven. It means that SynergyBlog is willing to give the guy a chance to repair the damage. Frankly, we would recommend a Facebook-sponsored national conversation regarding the rights of Americans to their privacy! That kind of initiative, perhaps a townhall in every large and mid-sized city, would harness some of the stakeholder anger and feelings of betrayal and turn them into something that serves the common good.
We thank you so much for your comment. Have a wonderful day!
Rachel
I distrust Zuckerberg even less after he rescinded his controversial privacy policy. I cannnot believe his statement in paragraph 5: “We never intended to claim ownership over people’s content even though that’s what it seems like to many people.” The very first sentence of the controversial privacy policy CLEARLY intended to claim an “irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense).”
His retraction of this ownership claim should not have said they “never intended.” They clearly DID intend, and you have to know that Zuckerberg and the legal team discussed this at length before posting it.
He retracted the the controversial policy (good), but lied while doing it (very bad).