Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Users Voting On Privacy, Instagram, Other Issues
Nerval's Lobster writes "Facebook is letting users vote on changes to its Data Use Policy and Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (Facebook users can vote via this link). The company will also host a live Webcast to answer questions at 9:30 AM PST. One section of Facebook's revamped policies insists that the network can share information with its family of companies. This apparently applies to Instagram, the photo-sharing service acquired by Facebook earlier this year. Under the terms of the provision, Facebook can store 'Instagram's server logs and administrative records in a way that is more efficient than maintaining totally separate storage systems.' Facebook is also clarifying its language surrounding affiliates, as well. As long as Facebook continues to exist in its current form, these debates over its privacy rules will almost certainly continue to crop up on a semi-regular basis. The challenge for Facebook executives is how to best maintain that delicate dance between their need for revenue, advertising firms' desire for effective marketing campaigns, and users' rights to privacy. They run a corporation — but at moments, it also starts to resemble a messy democracy."
There are only two options. Both options are super shitty and laced with lies or "half truths."
My work here is dung.
Other places where people get to "vote:" China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba
Never, ever mistake a company collecting feedback from its users for a democracy. Facebook's users aren't even its paying customers.
"They run a corporation â" but at moments, it also starts to resemble a messy democracy."
At first, I was going to roll my eyes (as if the submitter actually implied that this gesture resembled democracy in reality in any way), but then I reliased what a genius comment this was.
Of course it resembles a messy democracy: it's a meaningless facade presented by a corporation.
So if you already have your permissions a little restrictive and don't allow apps, when you go there you get confronted with this:
So, in order to participate in this voting, you need to agree to even more access by this thing just to find out what it looks like.
Facebook really are a bunch of asses aren't they? This is the same setting which wants to be used by apps and games to give them access to all of your data.
Will someone please lock Zuckerface into a room with a bear or something?
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Irrespective of the results, suppose they don't align to your expectations, there is really only one alternative as stated in their TOS - leave. That's what happens when you command a user base of a billion.
To be honest, there is NOTHING that makes me think of privacy when using FaceBook. To me... there privacy is an illusion, nothing more.
Unforunately, there's only one button to press: "Like this!"
One of the changes in the new set of documents is the removal of this community voting process. Ars Technica has a brief article on the changes.
So far the outcome is overwhelmingly in favour of keeping their current "SRR" and Data Use Policy, by about 10:1.
I checked the link in the summary: https://apps.facebook.com/fbsitegovernance/ and it consists of an iframe that loads the remote site https://fbgovernance.thuzi.com/.
Was Thuzi contracted by Facebook to perform this vote? Why would they be? Thuzi appears to be some sort of online social media marketing firm. Looks fishy to me.
Facebook isn't just a "website". It's size and reach are helping define what people expect of privacy. I have not ever had a Facebook account, yet I fully expect my future expectations of privacy to hinge on what the masses accept on Facebook. If Facebook sticks around and sets trends and expectations for years to come, what happens there matters. If millions of Americans grant access to something I might consider private, the government may stop defining that thing with a reasonable expectation of privacy. Even if *I* never granted that access.
So, while smarmy isn't productive, some sort of attitude is relevant here. Maybe attitude is what's necessary to get people thinking about what's at stake?
In a way, to (pretend to) hold voting on privacy changes is a new method for companies to move their customers at a pace that the majority are willing to accept. call it social mass manipulation, but it might be the wave of our future.
In NSA America social networks join you!
George W. Bush: A. Great President B. Greatest President ... I await your answer.
The vote isn't even recognized unless 30% of all Facebook users vote.
http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=76815337130
30% of 1 billion = 300 Million
So 300 million people have to vote for them to even consider the results.
Good luck. This vote is just for show.
There is nothing about the current FB process that contains any true accountability. This is a marketing exercise designed to give the noisiest contingent of FB users something they can do to create the illusion that they have a voice. Consider:
1. The current voting process has a minimum participation requirement for decisions to be binding. This participation threshold has never been met.
2. One of the changes being voted for is doing away with the voting system.
This is how it's going to play out: Facebook is going to work harder and harder to monetize the details of your personal life until somebody powerful and/or well-loved by the public is burned by their behavior, a la Gen. Petraues. Then there will be legislation to curb the powers of private entities like Facebook as a knee-jerk reaction. That is what a real "messy democracy" looks like.
Forget that! I just want to turn off the *()^%$! Places map in the timeline.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
I checked the link in the summary: https://apps.facebook.com/fbsitegovernance/ and it consists of an iframe that loads the remote site https://fbgovernance.thuzi.com/.
Was Thuzi contracted by Facebook to perform this vote? Why would they be? Thuzi appears to be some sort of online social media marketing firm. Looks fishy to me.
I did some further digging and on the Facebook legal terms & conditions page I found a reference to the Facebook Site Governance page, so it appears to be legitimate.
At least there isn't an electoral college involved.
A google search showed me that apparently they publish their Facebook API's to GitHub... Link
Doesn't make it any less fishy, but it's more info about them...
Ok, let's stop to consider this for a moment. 30% of the Facebook subscriber base needs to participate if the measure is to pass. What's the liklihood of that happening if:
(1) A significant percentage of all FB subscribers are spambots (estimated at 6-10% - http://www.insidefacebook.com/category/spam-2/ )
(2) The average turnout of a normal adult voting population for US elections is ~50% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout)
(3) There is a gap between "all users" and "monthly active users" - hard to estimate (e.g., http://www.forbes.com/sites/limyunghui/2012/09/30/1-billion-facebook-users-on-earth-are-we-there-yet/ )
(4) Voting requires registering for an app, which (see other comments) also reduces turnout?
I think we can say, with relative confidence, that it's very unlikely that a full 30% of all 'Facebookizens' will express their right to vote. Which is probably why Facebook set the 30% threshold in the first place.
But, it'll be fun to estimate: what percentage of FB users will actually vote in the end?
--D
Block as much of Facebook as you can:
*.facebook.com
*.facebook.net
*.fbkcdn.com
*.fbkcdn.net
Just in case, I also block:
*.fbcdn.com
*.fbcdn.net
It might be a good idea to block the same domains but ending in .org as well as well, just to be sure all of Facebook's current domains are all blocked.