Should Regulators Force Facebook To Ship a 'Start Over' Button For Users? (hunterwalk.com)

Hunter Walk: I don't really understand most of the proposals to "regulate" Facebook. There are some concrete proposals on the table regarding political ads and updating antitrust for the data age, but other punditry is largely consumer advocacy kabuki. For example, blunting the data Facebook can use to target ads or tune newsfeed hurts the user experience, and there's really no stable way to draw a line around what's appropriate versus not. These experiences are too fluid. But while I want keep the government out of the product design business, there's an alternate path which has merit: establish a baseline for the control a person has over their data on these systems. Today the platforms give their users a single choice: keep your account active or delete your account. Sure, some expose small amounts of ad targeting data and let you manipulate that, but on the whole they provide limited or no control over your ability to "start over." Want to delete all your tweets? You have to use a third party app. Want to delete all your Facebook posts? Good luck with that. Nope, once you're in the mousetrap, there's no way out except account suicide.

But is that really fair? Over multiple years, we all change. Things we said in 2011 may or may not represent us today. And these services evolve -- did we think we'd be using Facebook as a primary source of news consumption and private messaging back when you were posting baby photos? Did you think they'd also own Instagram, WhatsApp, Oculus and so on when you created accounts on those services? We're the frogs, slow boiling in the pot of water.

Comments

There *is* an easy line to draw

[beelsebob]

The EU already drew it. I must have an explicit opt in for all data collection, with a complete explanation of everything they're going to do with it. If they violate either the set of data they said they're going to collect, or do something with it they said they wouldn't, they're liable for massive fines.

Further, I should be able to see all data that they've collected on me on request.

Further, I should be able to demand they delete all data they hold on me.

That's a pretty clear line, and a pretty reasonable one.

Re:There *is* an easy line to draw

[Zocalo]

It's a good start, but there are still some fairly major loopholes that could do with being closed. Specifically for all the information that Facebook, Google, LinkedIn/Microsoft, Twitter, etc. gather on people without them even *having* an account. Even if we assume that they fully complied with a request to delete an individual's account data per the EU regulations, that would only almost certainly only mean pressing reset on the stuff tied to the account and they'd continue collecting the rest perfectly legally because it's "anonymous". That this kind of data isn't actually anonymous and can readily be tied to a specific individual is pretty well established by now, yet they continue to gather vast mountains of data on people who never opted in *or* out, nor is there a simple way to request it be deleted because an individual can't easily link themselves to a given tracking ID.

Be careful what you wish for on that as well. The fairly obvious solution would be legislation that forces companies to honour things like DoNotTrack, but given previous attempts in this area by the EU we'll probably end up with another fatally flawed implemention like the Cookie Directive and the endless series of prompts to allow them to set a cookie to say that you don't want them to set cookies.

Re:There *is* an easy line to draw

[beelsebob]

It's a good start, but there are still some fairly major loopholes that could do with being closed. Specifically for all the information that Facebook, Google, LinkedIn/Microsoft, Twitter, etc. gather on people without them even *having* an account.

That's not a loophole - that's just straight up illegal. As I said - it's an opt-in. Companies operating in the EU are not allowed to collect data on people without their consent.

Re:There *is* an easy line to draw

[Zocalo]

Social media platforms are absolutely doing this kind of thing, even in the EU, and they get away with it because, as far as the letter of the law in many places is concerned, provided they store the data under a generic UID like "AdvertisingTargetProfile529313" applied behind the scenes rather than an actual name like "beelsebob", it's considered anonymous. The spirit of the law and lots of data analysis proving the contrary might say bullshit to that, but barring someone actually taking them to court over it and winning, that's what they do and will continue to do.

It's easy enough to test too. Wipe your browser's cache, or start a browser in a clean sandbox on a random IP address that isn't tied to you (e.g. a random coffee shop), disable any ad-blockers, enable cookies and scripts, then start surfing the multiple sites across the web looking for information a random product like you might be looking to make a purchase - reviews, specs, etc. You don't even need to follow links between sites; just going directly to relevant sites and using their internal search engines or browsing site indexes is enough. How long do you think it'll take before Google etc. start serving up ads based on what you are looking for, even if you only search using other engines? If you get to the ten minute mark before getting nailed, I'll be impressed. They're only able to do that because they're using non-opt-in profiling and, sooner or later, there's going to be enough data in that profile that it might as well have your actual name on it- and with the right analysis it quite easily could - assuming you didn't inadvertly give that data point away as well, of course.

Started w/ "should regulators", not "should Facebo

[raymorris]

I find it interesting that the author didn't ask "should Facebook have a 'start over' button?"

The author seems unclear not only about what solution might work, but what problem they are trying to solve " antitrust ...
data Facebook can use to target ads ... Things we said in 2011 may or may not represent us today."

They aren't clear on what the problem is they are concerned about, they don't ask "should Facebook offer this option", indeed they don't ask "does Facebook offer a 'start over' button' (yes they do); they seem to start with the assumption that "regulators force - something" and go from there asking what it is that bureaucrats should force Facebook to do.

I'll start with a different set of questions:

Is it helpful for Facebook to offer a way to "start over", to delete all your posts and friend requests?

Does this author realize there already is that option, and many people do that, without bureaucrats being brought in to force anything?

“Unpublishing” something is not possib

[Cigaes]

Something that has been published cannot, in all generality, be “unpublished”, be it a Facebook post, a tweet or a column in a high school newspaper. If you are high-profile enough to warrant the efforts, people will manage to dig dirt.

But the article says: “Over multiple years, we all change. Things we said in 2011 may or may not represent us today.” And another point: people make mistakes, people should not be judged on their mistakes but on how they react to them.

The public needs to understand that, more than a “right to be forgotten” or a “start over” button: people's lives and careers should not be broken because of something they said ten years ago (provided they do not still say the same today) or a message they retracted after a few minutes.

Permanence

[Chelloveck]

Should regulators force tattoo parlors to use erasable ink? Things I expressed in 2011 may not represent me today!

Re:New email?

[CaptainDork]

"Getting," as in "creating," isn't difficult.

"Rebuilding can be a pain in the ass, similar to changing to a new email address.

Facebook needs a "wipe," function tailored to Likes, Shares, and posts. We need to "Delete all older than ..."

Good lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

For the younger crowd - no part of life features a 'start over' button. It's just as well you learn to cope with that fact and make conscious choices that extend beyond the moment, instead. You WILL have to face this reality sooner or later whether you like it or not. Might as well get it over with.

What he's saying is a TRAP

[Rick Schumann]

This 'Start Over' button this person speaks of is a trap. It would only really benefit platforms like Facebook. Why? Because the 'old' data the user wants to delete permanently just dilutes the entire database Facebook would have of that person; deleting the old data would actually improve the quality of the data for Facebook. I'm with other commentors: All data collection should be 'opt in', and it should be ILLEGAL to collect data on people otherwise.

Also, this: PEOPLE DO NOT WANT 'TARGETED' ADS, EVER! Even if most people aren't very verbal about it, people HATE ads and would prefer to never see them.