Posts Tagged: newsfeed


9
Nov 07

Facebook’s Beacon and Boundary States

It’s been interesting to watch the critiques of Facebook’s Beacon roll in. Erick Schonfeld, official Techcrunch voice of reason, points out the somewhat absurd conjecture that social ads are more relevant. Across the web, there seems to be general agreement – social input helps in times of need, like when we need a recommendation of a good mechanic, but other times it’s just spam. Today I want to explore Beacon from a slightly different angle – I want to look at how Beacon will affect Facebook users’ conceptions of privacy and space.

Let’s first flash back to the Facebook Newsfeeds. When Facebook introduced the Newsfeeds, there was a tremendous backlash as users were confronted with the privacy implications of the tool. Facebook responded in a typical corporate fashion, stating that no new information was being put out there, people could see your information if they visited your profile, etc. Of course, what Facebook failed to realize is that privacy is both qualitative and quantitative. Privacy theorist Irwin Altman describes our conception of privacy as boundary states; Facebook reshaped a number of these boundaries with Newsfeed. Helen Nissenbaum explores it another way, framing privacy as contextual integrity – we project ourselves and what we share into contexts; Facebook forced us to realize that our friend/disclosure context was not just the 5-10 people we interact with daily, but the 500 other “friends” we’ve added through the years.

Therefore, Newsfeed wasn’t just a privacy shift in Facebook, it was a cultural shift. A friendship, the primary action in the site, was no longer the one-time exchange of social capital; it became an invitation to be present in a user’s day-to-day activities. This remapping of friendship was the locus of the revolt, as millions of users pondered just who was seeing their information on an everyday basis. As one might imagine, among these users privacy and self-regulation shot up; I observed a 20% jump in privacy between samples in 2006 and 2007.

Beacon introduces another of these cultural shifts. In the case of Newsfeed, Facebook users were forced to reconceptualize their audience. Nissenbaum’s Contextual Integrity theory explains our reaction to Newsfeeds; the reshaping of privacy norms is a traumatic event. Beacon is somewhat different, so I want to lean on Altman for my explanation. With Beacon, Facebook’s boundaries are remapped. Users will be forced to realize that their Facebook identity “follows” them through the web. As a result, Facebook users will be forced to reevaluate all of their activities on the social web.

Let’s not fall into the quantitative privacy misdirection. With Beacon, you’ve got control over what you share; with careful control, you can even prevent any Beacon stories from showing up in your newsfeed. Just as with Newsfeed, there isn’t a quantitative privacy shift. But there is a very, very significant qualitative shift.

Due to the general “walled garden” nature of the web, we naturally map our behavior into domains. We can be one person on Facebook, another person on Myspace, and yet another person at Flickr, YouTube and Digg. The ClaimID-type idea of “profile linking” is still very new, with only a very small number of us wanting to map a consistent identity between sites.

For the past six months or three years, we’ve been cultivating our persona in Facebook. We’re used to boundaries, we know where Facebook ends, and we can segment Facebook as a “part” of our social web experience. With Beacon, Facebook users will be forced to confront the interconnection of their Facebook identity with the social web; the boundaries that existed previously no longer apply. Altman argues that our cognition of privacy boundaries are based on observable, mappable phenomena. We know that our homes are private because people can’t see through walls. With Facebook Beacon, the walls that we used to understand are gone – our identity, designed for a single place with focused interaction, now follows us everywhere. This is extremely significant.

In a class discussion yesterday, Terrell Russell summed it up nicely: The social web now has landmines. When we browse sites, we’re forced to wonder “Will this show up in Facebook.” And what happens when the momentary flux in Facebook’s systems gets your settings wrong, and something you didn’t expect shows up in your Newsfeed? I don’t want to base my argument on contingencies; we’ll be mindful of accidential information leaks, but the major problem with be our confrontation with our “Facebook selves” anywhere and everywere. Even though Zappos or Epicurious may not have our “data”, we’ll be constantly reminded that they “know of” our Facebook selves.

The Facebook team stakes its value proposition on the notion that our Facebook identities are our real selves. This is false; because we use our real names, we are not our “real selves.” Identity is performed and crafted in Facebook; our selves are as real in Facebook as they are in Myspace and Friendster before. Beacon challenges this notion, reminding us anywhere and everywhere we go that we’ve got to keep our identity performance up.

Critical point, marketers: If our identity performance infects all of our buying decisions, will this help or hurt your sales? That is, if I had to think about what everyone thought of all of my purchases, would I self-regulate my purchasing behavior? Would I treat myself less, buying less guilty-pleasure stuff? Do I actually want to have to go through this decision process every time I buy anything, being forced to process what my friend group will think about me?

Just like Icarus flying too close to the sun, Facebook’s fallacy of “real” identity is leading the company into very dangerous territory. Facebook believes in the transparent society; what they fail to realize is that the transparent society only benefits the power elite. With Facebook’s Harvard and Stanford pedigrees, its easy to see how groupthink and cultural preconceptions inform their decision making. Beacon is an inflection point. As we are confronted with the loss of boundaries, our notions of privacy and space will be reshaped. We’re about to wade into some dangerous water – Facebook and its marketing partners should pay close attention.

Update: Via Brian Oberkirch, directions on how to block Beacon. Anyone know how to implement this block with NoScript?


25
Jul 07

No, I don’t want to share this

I’m officially bummed that the newsfeed has grown so spammy that I get no value out of it anymore. Logging in and seeing this ad in my newsfeed really is a fitting coup de grĂ¢ce.


25
May 07

The Facebook Platform: Notes

In my previous post, I went into depth about the role Platform will play in Facebook’s strategy going forward. This post is a less coherent collection of notes and criticisms I have about the Facebook Platform.

  • Fees: On the record, Facebook has stated they don’t plan to charge fees for Platform access. However, the Terms of Service, section III, clearly provides FB the opportunity to start charging: “We reserve the right to charge a fee for using the Facebook Platform and/or any individual features thereof at any time in our sole discretion.” Smart money says that FB will stay away from charging as long as possible, its not in their best interest to stunt growth.
  • Re-arrange your profile: With Platform, you can now drag-and-drop rearrange your profile. Cool stuff, but limited. You can’t raise any elements above your Friends (left side) and your Mini-feed (right side). To move stuff around, go to your profile, click on the blue top bar of your profile elements, and drag around. You’ll need javascript for this to work.
  • Time to re-think privacy? Its great that I can post these new applications to my profile, but what about the 99% of Facebook that can’t see my profile? Now, this has never bothered me, but it might bother people who are developing applications for Facebook. Perhaps it is time to let branded apps selectively peek through the privacy layer, with approval of course.
  • Friends.get still broken. One of the main problems with the API is that it will only allow you to see the friends of the current user. What this means is that the user of an application can only see their friend network, but not the networks of their friends. This makes no sense because I can easily see my friends’ networks in Facebook proper. By not allowing the API to get a list of a friend’s friends, my ability to get interesting information by stumbling around is critically limited. Right now, Facebook apps have to be just about you. I already know me – let me find things out about my friends via their friend networks.
  • Feed.publish: In my opinion, this is the biggest deal in the API. A secret of Facebook is that people actually don’t spend all that much time on each others’ profiles. I don’t check my friends’ profiles each day, and I certainly don’t check my less-than-friends profiles every day. First off, the news feed handles that for me, and second, we just dont have the time or inclination to surf our friends endlessly all the time. This is a key drawback to profile apps – people actually arent going to see them that often. However, with the feed.publish call, people can now have access to a news feed, meaning an app can broadcast what you’ve done to your newsfeed. This is a huge addition, and is very important. Also important to note is that the amount of times an app can publish to the feed is limited (about 20x/person) so applications must be careful when using feed messages.
  • Joe or Jane Developer to the Background? The Facebook API has largely been used by hobbyists and independent developers. While a few corporations peeked in, the majority of the development was done by people who were experimenting with the API. The applications created to date have a distinctly second-class feel, and the launch was really all about companies, not the individuals who have been providing the necessary testing, experimentation and feedback that Facebook required to get this product out the door. If companies become the first-class citzens of the Platform, expect students and hobbyists to go elsewhere; that would be a bad, bad situation for FB. FB should re-invest in its developer community, reward and encourage development going forward.
  • Higer Ed, its time to colonize: Of course, the last people who will develop Facebook platform applications will be Higher Ed, which moves as fast as a glacier on things like this. This is a shame, because Higher Ed has every incentive to participate. Why? This is the prime digital space for your constituents. Higher Ed should look at developing useful, need-answering places in Facebook. Give me a page with the academic calendar, links to Blackboard and student services, give me messages from time to time. Higher Ed can do all of this without worrying about FERPA or anything else. I’d also like to see alumni associations look into this – its extremely relevant and useful for the alumni context.

I think my thoughts on how higher ed could use the platform warrant another post. I might even mock up a few ideas. Your ideas and feedback welcome in the thread.


25
May 07

The Facebook Platform: Analysis

Update: Please see additional notes and criticism of the Facebook Platform in this post.

I’ve spent the morning reading the endless coverage of the recently-launched Facebook Platform. In case you can’t figure it out from the breathless tone of the coverage, this is big news; I commend the folks at Facebook for all of their hard work. Since it’s not particularly valuable for me to re-state things that have already been said (read here or here for a good treatment of the platform), I figured I’d just share my own take.

Let’s start simple – what is the Facebook platform? The platform is an extension of the Facebook API that allows third-parties to integrate applications within the profile. That is, the Facebook profile is now customizable. Among many other things, I can now add a list of adoptable dogs or cats to my profile (my favorite Facebook Platform app by far, thanks Dogster). The applications are “deeply integrated” into Facebook, meaning they have access to Facebook data. Unlike Myspace’s approach, where third-party applications sit above and apart from the platform, Facebook’s applications can reach into the platform and pull out data. This means you can know things like how many of your friends use an application, for example.

The setup process is simple; you select an application, agree to the terms of service, customize the application and then use the application. There are two outcomes – in one, the application is added to your profile. For example, you can add a list of adoptable pets to your profile. In the second outcome, you become a member of the application, but you don’t add it to your profile. You can still interact with the application, but it is less of an identity statement.

Understanding the differences between these two outcomes is important. In the first case, we can think of applications more as widgets; simple tools that enable individuals to make identity statements through their profiles. In the second case, we can think of Facebook as the gateway to rich applications, ones that leverage your data to provide a better experience. This is the “portal” example – where Facebook may become a portal to places like Ebay, Amazon or YouTube.

The play is simple; Facebook seeks to become a starting point for its users web experience. In essence, it is solving the “what’s next” problem by providing users a potentially endless set of experiences to encounter within the Facebook framework. Facebook knows that it has limited resources, by ceding some control of its space to third-parties, it retains users while enabling them to spend more time exploring the endless depths of the Facebook experience. In a sense, this is Second Life applied to Facebook; Second Life is only as interesting as the environments developed within – Facebook is no different.

Sounds like a great plan, right? I agree, it does sound good on paper. But how it shakes out in the real world is still left to be known. Facebook users engage with the service to have social needs answered; while Platform adds a bunch of new capability to the service, does it actually answer social needs? I think you could argue that the diversification of information presented on a profile is a relevant social need, but what about an Amazon marketplace? Is that a relevant social need? The ultimate question revolves around how these applications enable mutual disclosure between friends – how they help friends learn more about each other. That’s been the killer app of Facebook since day one, and just because the audience has changed somewhat I don’t believe it is no longer relevant.

The good news is that Platform is value-agnostic. There’s a lot of room for people to develop the applications that enable discovery about friends. And while that might not need to be the main goal of all applications, the applications that leverage discovery and revelation about friends will engage their audience in a different way than those who do not.

Ultimately, I think the Second Life metaphor is the one that sticks best to the Facebook Platform. Facebook has opened its doors in a way that Myspace has never dreamed of. In doing so, they’ve created a marketplace of ideas that will benefit the company and the community. They have realized that to create a thriving community, and ecosystem must be fostered. Facebook Platform is that ecosystem, well-positioning the company for its inevitable growth.

Update: Please see my notes and criticism of the Facebook Platform in this post.


15
Nov 06

Stalking by Slider: Facebook Updates News Feeds

This morning, Facebook announced a series of changes to their controversial news feeds product. Here are the two major modifications.

  • First, Facebook has introduced a “slider” system, much like a graphic equalizer, that lets you control how much of each type of information you see in your friends’ news feeds. For example, if you want to see more about relationship information and less about group adds, you simply slide the appropriate toggle.
  • Second, Facebook has introduced 20-member personal whitelists and blacklists. Want to see everything about one person? Throw them on your “More about these people” list. Want to not get updates about this person but not have to defriend them? Put them on your “Less about these people” list.

This move is in response to some very fundamental user experience challenges the Facebook feeds introduced. The average Facebook user has hundreds of friends, many of which frequently update the profiles or engage in activity that creates news feed items (10 types of action in total). Furthermore, of those hundreds of friends, many of them are only nominal friends – people that you aren’t really interested in seeing everything they do in life. With all of this information being shared, the average Facebook user was being deluged with more information than they could process. This was a classic case of information overload.

These changes should go part way in helping Facebook users deal with the information overload feeds introduced. However, they aren’t perfect. It is quite obvious that limiting the “less about” list to 20 people is a poor choice, as the average Facebook user has more than 20 people who could easily go on this list.

The other things the more/less about lists introduce are very interesting internal data. One of the core challenges in a SNS is identifying “real” friendship in the service. Facebook has attempted to do this with social timeline, but I think this move is the best to date. While these lists don’t get to who are our best “friends” in the service, they address who we care about the most and least. In a SNS, I’d wager that this is as good a notion of friendship as any. This is very powerful data.

Also interesting is looking at personal feeds history for users of the Facebook. You can do this by clicking the “View All” link of each person’s news feed. All of the information they have shared in the Facebook since September (when feeds were introduced) are available to interested parties. This “record” is what I was talking about in my writing on Facebook as an identity archive.


5
Sep 06

Blogosphere Reacts to Facebook Feeds

Its been an interesting day watching reaction to the new Facebook “feeds” percolate through the blogosphere. Here’s a selection of some of the posts I found interesting, with commentary.

First, posts with a positive review.

Echo chamber much? Granted, one can’t expect A-list bloggers to completely understand the ecosystem of something like Facebook, but the long-tail blogosphere clearly doesn’t share their collective opinion.

Scott Kidder writes:

Mike [Arrington, of Techcrunch] and Liz [Gannes, of Giga OM]: have you ever used Facebook? Not tried it out, but seriously used Facebook, day after day? This is not cool. It’s one thing to stay up-to-date by seeing a friend has updated their profile. It’s quite another to be able to view the history of their relationship status, and see exactly who and when they make new friends.

The blogosphere replies with a collective Amen.

Onto some of the less positive reactions:

Of course, this is just a small sampling of what has been written today. Unfortunately, the major blog search engines don’t have temporal searching (so I can’t really pull out stats), but perusing recent posts about facebook feeds shows them almost lock-step highly skeptical on the feature.

I’m blown away by a few things. First, the reaction of the blogosphere has shown me, again, the power of the long tail. The A-Listers are out of touch, spouting about technology they don’t understand or use heavily. The best posts I read on the subject, far and away, were from folks who didn’t have any “authority” in Technorati. I hope people from the Facebook also read these posts – they are truly a splash of cold water to the face.

I’m blown away by how strongly and negatively people reacted to the feature. As a pretty huge privacy-phobe, even I didn’t think this feature was that “bad”. With the press’ recent obsession with Myspace, it only stands that students are more attuned to privacy and disclosure issues – and the completeness of disclosure in Facebook feeds seems to have stunned many.

Finally, I’m blown away by the sheer level of emotional investment the community has in Facebook. Well, actually, I’m not, but I do feel that a day like today really validates my research. When social software is adopted by the community, that software begins to have a responsibility in (and to) the community. That software must play by the rules of the community, and it must not deviate too strongly from the norms of the community. A generation of college students are socialized on the Facebook, and today Facebook went and changed everything. Imagine going in to your favorite local coffeeshop and finding out they no longer serve lattes, because it is user friendly and efficient to only serve brewed coffee. If you’re a fan of lattes, wouldn’t you have wished they’d asked your opinion first? Facebook’s users feel like that today, except we’re not talking about lattes, we’re talking about their identity.

As someone who watches the Facebook closely, this has been a fascinating day. Earlier today, I wrote “This morning, millions of college students are thinking differently about their online identity.” I’m starting to believe that just might be true.