13 Comments

Summary:

As the social web — and increasingly, the geo-aware web — make our lives more public, we are having to (quickly!) figure out how and how not to share the more private parts of our lives online. Facebook last week updated its settings to make certain […]

As the social web — and increasingly, the geo-aware web — make our lives more public, we are having to (quickly!) figure out how and how not to share the more private parts of our lives online.

Facebook last week updated its settings to make certain user data public by default — and thus more searchable and monetizable. It served largely to tick people off, especially given that the features were advertised as a way for users to define their privacy on a more granular level. Some folks like Dan Gillmor took the extreme step of deleting their existing accounts. Still, Gillmor didn’t walk away from the site, but instead created a new account with privacy controls with which he felt comfortable.

Meanwhile, MG Siegler at TechCrunch has a post up today that’s mostly about Foursquare, specifically how the service is becoming less useful to him as he adds more friends on it. Siegler talks of peer pressure to build a bigger friend set, and certainly that may be a challenge he and others face. But he actually says he doesn’t want Foursquare to get smarter and more targeted (and more complicated, like Facebook) because he’s concerned that the site grow as fast as it can so it can be viable. He thinks the site stands the best chance of competing if it can become as big as possible, and calls it “location’s social paradox.”

However (and somewhere deep down, Facebook must know this), not every social web service will grow like Twitter, a case in which both users and the company have thrived by becoming more public over time. Especially for the hot-hot-hot emerging category of location-aware services, there is an opportunity to be more intimate and also more useful. Though being a Twitter celebrity is fun, ultimately the services that provide reciprocal relationships will be the most valuable. So I don’t think location has a social paradox, because it’s exactly the kind of sharing that is most useful when it’s done with your actual friends. Right now there’s an early adopter problem, but that will change.

Our concept of privacy is eroding as we share more and see the benefits of it. Soon there will be just too much personal data out there for people to get huffy about letting any one private detail escape. But there’s a very real value to sharing in small groups, especially for information as sensitive as a person’s exact location in real time, as on Foursquare. As we face the strengthening force of information overload, friend connections are a valuable filter. That’s also how a location-based social service, if done right, can monetize better than a larger existing local business directory like Yelp. Intersecting where we are and who we know should become an amazing approximation of what we want.

Today we may limit our personal sharing because we’re worried about privacy, but tomorrow it will be because we’re having problems coping with overwhelming reciprocal information. Though Facebook is trying to throw open the doors a bit, real-world relationships are its core, and users still find value in their actual friends. The social networking site said itself that before last week, only 15-20 percent of its users had ever changed anything about their privacy settings. The web as a whole needs to get smarter at filtering, and we as social web users are going to start to realize the value of helping it out.

Please see the disclosure in my bio about Facebook. Lead picture by Flickr user law_keven.

  1. [...] Adds Tweets to Search, But Not in Real Time See All Articles » The Social Web & the Value of Keeping [...]

    Share
  2. This is an issue with Wave, too — and a critical one, if it’s going to be widely adopted in corporate environments. I’m a tiny Wave user, and it’s already got me a little baffled. The social potential of Wave is front and center; I have to take more responsibility and be more thoughtful about what I’m doing with Wave, than I’ve had to with any other social app I’ve used so far.

    Share
    1. Heath & Liz

      I was thinking about this over the weekend and had tweeted about this, wondering it was a smart idea for me to continue my Facebook account or reset it ala Dan and then restrict it to a select few people.

      I am getting increasingly perturbed about privacy and have been wondering how to essentially re-arrange my social network. Suggestions?

      Share
      1. “… I am getting increasingly perturbed about privacy and have been wondering how to essentially re-arrange my social network. Suggestions? …”

        I’ve tried a combination of 2 strategies:

        a) Define what you mean by friends: My choice was to carefully pick people I know who’s integrity I’ve tested ~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/3405148559/

        b) Create a strategy for public/private release of data: I choose to have all but a small amount of information online private. I live on the Open-Web so I the information I release, I censor for broad consumption. ~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/3386846627/

        Combined they tend to diffuse potential information leakage from friends and soften privacy changes. It also inoculates “The illusion of anonymity” ~ http://bootload.posterous.com/the-illusion-of-anonymity

        Share
      2. No suggestions from me, as I’ve written Facebook off, though I’ve kept my account open. For me, it became too complicated to provide the view of friends that I was looking for. Twitter’s concise format gives a better view, imho, because it encourages transparency through its casual nature, better reflecting the way relationships, whether close or distant, are structured and work. Every relationship has its own sine wave, with daily stuff making little jagged variations. Twitter reveals both aspects. This keeps Twitter views of people both fresh and steady, a nice combination that I find a lot of pleasure in taking part in.

        If Facebook brings a lot of value to your life, imho you’re quite exposed via the nature of your art, and you may feel more comfortable if you rebuild your Facebook account to make it more haven-like.

        Share
      3. @Om – I think it’s interesting that you think you could start fresh and derive the same value from the service. I wouldn’t want to give up the record of the life I’ve lived on it. Not that they do a lot to help me parse through my archived contributions, besides photos…

        Share
  3. there may be no real value in privacy
    things like public computers, public transport, and

    public information

    rocks in era of efficiency

    people at “frendface” just know how to make money making your faces public.

    facebook
    is selling (you and your) user database

    this is older article on simila issue

    Share
  4. It’s good that you and others are questioning what they want to share on Facebook.

    I just had a question from a reader (I am a social media agony aunt) asking if I thought these changes show that Facebook is ‘evil’. In my opinion, the reader was working under the assumption that using Facebook is ‘free’. It’s not. In fact, money is cheap compared to the value of what you hand over in return for using the site. It’s a very important thing to remember.

    Share
  5. [...] The Social Web & the Value of Keeping Things Private (gigaom.com) [...]

    Share
  6. [...] The Social Web & the Value of Keeping Things Private See All Articles » Local Reviews: Stop Counting Stars and Just Try the Tacos [...]

    Share
  7. [...] The Social Web & the Value of Keeping Things Private (gigaom.com) [...]

    Share
  8. [...] The Social Web & the Value of Keeping Things Private (gigaom.com) [...]

    Share
  9. [...] Privacy concerns notwithstanding, this wealth of information and customization can be put to a greater good. As Marc Davis, former chief scientist of Yahoo Mobile and founder of Invention Arts, said at a recent GigaOM bunker series event (see related GigaOM Pro write-up, subscription required): “Human beings understand context from their relationships, but computers do not, so if we can use metadata to help computers understand where, when and how the metadata was created, we build better context for data.” That’s what Facebook is after. But in order to do so, the company needs to look beyond the confines of its own web service. And it is. [...]

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post