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.

“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!