May 16th, 2008
How Facebook is like the Bush Administration
by Joshua Porter | 
14 Comments
Yesterday Facebook, in explaining why they won’t play nicely with Google’s Friend Connect, took a policy directly out of the Bush Administration playbook.
It’s the policy of “we know what’s good for you better than you do”.
So while the Bush Administration dissolves our civil liberties in the name of protecting the country, Facebook is dissolving our ability to share information the way we want to in the name of privacy.
Is this a silly comparison? Maybe, but we are talking about personal identity data here. It’s important.
Facebook’s Charlie Cheever says:
“Privacy and openness go hand-in-hand – as we open up, we have to make sure that users always have control of their information, and understand how and where it’s being used.”
If Facebook truly believed this, then Beacon would never have happened. The double-speak coming out of this company is really astounding. While many millions of people who use Facebook don’t care enough about the company to actually parse this stuff, technologists aren’t fooled in the least.
Michael Arrington has a similar sentiment: “How dare Facebook tell ME that I cannot give Google access to this data!”
What’s worse is that Facebook is being dishonest. They’re lying about the real reason why they won’t allow this. Instead of saying “well, as a for-profit business it’s not in the best interests of our shareholders” they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too by suggesting that Facebook users are in control of their own data.
Are we in control of our own data on Facebook? Hmm…
Was I in control of the data that Facebook was giving to 3rd parties in Beacon?
Was I in control of my news feed data when that feature was first rolled out?
Were the countless people who tried to get their accounts deleted in control of their data?
The answer to all of those questions, of course, is NO. I am not in control of my own data at Facebook, you are not in control of your data on Facebook, and we never have been. Please don’t pretend that I or anybody else has control of our data, Facebook. You’re insulting everyone’s intelligence, even your own.
So forgive me for the analogy, but just like the Bush Administration, Facebook is all spin. It’s too bad what was once a fun, exciting service is now taking its cues from the ultimate spinmeisters down on Capitol Hill.
well some of the funders are the same for one… but also please lets consider that a blog called “own your own identity” should be a little more skeptical about the Scoble Plaxo incident. Robert was exporting other people’s data, not just his own. “just birthdays” as he told me at the time. A blog dedicated to people owning their own data should surely ask some tough questions of both parties, not just FB. I am just sayin. Lets remember that Plaxo is now owned by Comcast, and this all happened in the run-up to the acquisition. Comcast, our friends and firm supporters of Net Neutrality.
One difference is that when you are a “user” of the United States of America, you assume you have rights, whereas when you are a user of a commercial product you explicitly give up those rights.
Facebook isn’t any different than any other company that you willingly give data to. You agree to give up your rights when you sign up.
Those people who assume that Facebook and other data-holding companies should behave differently probably also have pretty libertarian opinions about the government’s rights over our data, too.
What has changed, I think, is America’s perception of their rights with respect to the government. More and more people accept the government’s right to control our information as if the government was just another corporation. American consumers have long been perfectly and increasingly content to be absolutely savaged by corporations — and the government has, in recent years, seemed to have taken on the same relationship to us that corporations do.
Same goes for their honesty: Companies and the government lie to us so regularly that most people don’t even notice or care.
Your point is well taken, though. It will be harder and harder for us to expect companies to relinquish their control over our data when we can’t even muster up the will to protest an Administration — our own government — that routinely robs us of those rights.
@James - I removed the Scoble/Plaxo example. You’re right, it’s not appropriate here.
To paraphrase Ben Franklin:
“He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”
Facebook - like Myspace, like Google - are all spin when it comes to talking about their users and their data. They all want the same thing, but want to try and act like they’re the good guys.
I think the notion of the host owning content instead of the user is a scary precedent to set. Does GoDaddy own my blog? Does Remember The Milk own my to-do list? Does Flickr own my photographs?
@Whitney that’s a great point. Why is it that with social object sites like Flickr, Remember the Milk, and YouTube do we so easily see that it’s our data, yet when that data is on a social network site it is less clear? Good question!
@Whitney your so right. And what this social network sites fail to understand is that they are nothing without their community. If Facebook had no users then where would they be. So they need to play nicely with their user base and not take them for granted.
While Facebook was cool it has now become a site that most of the early adapters are moving away from. It’s time users to truly own their data. If we create it on their sites then we should own it. If we want to pull it down then we should be able to. They should not be able to tell us when, where, and what we should be doing with our own social graph. Facebook does not own me.
Great comparison. This article will be useful to link to when I try to explain data-portability and -freedom to normal people.
Hi Joshua. I was totally thinking this when I heard Facebook’s rhetoric. Thanks for putting it into words here.
Excellent analysis of the issue. I have alway felt Facebook and similar services are simply duplicating the business model of old-school AOL. The original walled garden strategy.
@Whitney does raise a good point. I’ve not read any social network Terms of Service recently (or ever, I suppose), but I imagine they are pretty explicit about owning everything you put up there.
Which begs the question: Is there a market for a social network or app that makes *no claim whatsoever* to your data?
This might be a tough business model — most social networks can only afford to exist because they either already sell your information to their business partners and advertisers or they want to keep open the option to do so someday. Almost all web business models rely at some root level on the ability to violate their customer/user base with marketing and spam as a last resort to profitability.
[...] in the swirl of huge companies and their misleading public announcements are their descriptions of exactly what type of identity information is being shared and how. While [...]
[...] the one hand, we have a nanny state who thinks that it knows best and needs to protect its users from themselves, and on the other, a lassé-faire-trusting band of bros who are looking to the free market to [...]
[...] How Facebook is like the Bush Administration: This post from the Own Your Identity blog considers how to protect your privacy and maintain a strong security system while sharing information online. [...]