Forbes Study: CMOs More Bullish on Social Media than Apps (via Steve Rubel)

During a recent meeting with Forbes they shared with me a summary of their recent survey of Chief Marketing Officers (embedded below). There are two notable trends here - which Forbes isn't connecting, but I am.

First, social media is seen as the single most promising marketing vehicle amongst all respondents and those who oversee more than $5M in annual spend. Note how social media surpasses other tactics that get a lot of attention - notably mobile applications and search engine marketing.

Click to view large
Download full size (357 KB)

Second, some 73% of CMOs surveyed oversee PR. I don't have the data, but I imagine this is a new trend. In the past, PR would sit in all kinds of other departments. Now it seems to be more closely aligned with marketing.

Click to view large
Download full size (291 KB)

Now the Forbes study doesn't say this, but I fundamentally believe that other than placing ads, PR is in the best position to manage a business' social media endeavors. The reason is that engaging in social circles requires an understanding of psychology and also it is an uncontrolled discipline. Both of these play well to the skills of PR practitioners. If I were a CMO controlling $5M in spend with an interest in social media and I oversaw PR, I would connect these dots. I suspect that's what many are doing.

Ten Steps To Build A Basic Content Hub (via Scalable Intimacy)

a great how to. my comments at the end


Ten Steps To Build A Basic Content Hub

Posted on | January 13, 2010 |

View commentsComments

Using the Web to build your brand is less and less about creating destinations, and more and more about creating content useful to the people you want to reach, then empowering them to access that content wherever and however they like.

The key to this is creating something we call a “Content Hub.” A content hub is more than just a standalone site or application, it’s both the heart of a distributed network of information, and a destination for those that share the interest it supports.

Rather than explain the theory of a content hub in detail, it’s best to just build a quick-and-dirty one, and use it. Here’s the process I’d recommend to do exactly that:

  1. If you don’t have a GMail account, create one, say acme@gmail.com. You’ll need this e-mail for all the logins, might as well use the same one.
  2. Associate your logo with that e-mail in Gravatar.com, this will also come in handy later.
  3. Create a YouTube account associated with the same Google ID.
  4. Create a Flickr account. You may need a Yahoo e-mail account for this, just create one.
  5. Create a Twitter account, and customize the profile page to reflect your brand identity. Add an image, and a short bio line, for God’s sake.
  6. Create a Facebook Page. You can do this from your personal Facebook account, if you don;t have one you’ll need to create one.
  7. Create a Posterous account, and activate the Group Profile feature to make it easier for others to post to the account. Connect your YouTube, Flickr, and Facebook Pages to Posterous so that any content you send to Posterous bounces into the other accounts automagically.
  8. Create a simple listening station in Google Reader. You’ll have access to Google Reader automatically having set up the GMail account above. Lot’s of smart people have described how to do this, just do what they say. Once you get the basics down you’ll be able to pull any RSS feed into Reader, which I promise will come in handy at some point.
  9. Click the Reader “Settings” at upper right, then the rightmost tab which is “Send To.” Configure Reader to send content to the destination sites you created above.
  10. Use the damn thing.

The “hub” of the system is your new GMail account. If you log into that each morning you’ll have access to everything you need. To distribute original content through the system, just use the Posterous account. This is dirt simple straightforward… You can post everywhere by sending e-mail to post@posterous.com from your GMail address. Send images and they’ll go to Flickr as well. Send video and they’ll post to YouTube automatically, etc. Links to everything you create will will appear on your new Posterous blog, and go out to your Twitter followers and Facebook fans, automatically.

“Curating” content is even easier. Whatever is in Reader can be sent through the system by clicking the “Send To” button. When you do that a drop-down appears with Twitter, Facebook, and Posterous as options (remember, choosing “Posterous” sends it everywhere). Begin to poke around in the local blogs and start raising your visibility. Leave short comments on others blogs to draw traffic to your own, and create the personal connection you need to deliver on the brand promise (Gravatar is already set up if you followed the above, so wherever you log in to comment on someone else’s blog and use your GMail address, your icon will also appear and give you some exposure.)

You can also access your brand “listening station” in Google Reader. Just click “Reader” at the upper left of Gmail, and you’ll pretty much be able monitor any appearance of the brand online. You should add some influential local Bloggers to the feeds there as well, and create folders for whatever else you like to read on the web.

So what happens now?

Start posting. Share the content you find interesting in Reader. Build some relationships. Get to know folks. Help people, and watch them help you back. If you need something more industrial strength, please give us a call. But for 90% of the businesses out there, the truth is this is enough to get started building the relationships that will help build your business.

Category: Branding -->

Comments

Showing 6 comments

  • Another great post Mike. Thanks for sharing. I have everything but a Posterous account, so this should be easy to give it a try. I'm looking forward to seeing the results.

    cheers
    -matt

    Like Reply Reply
  • Thanks, and thanks for stopping by. Let me know how it goes.
    Like Reply Reply
  • Just did this... well, nearly all of it, in nearly the order you described...a few weeks before you posted. I can therefore verify this is a good post, in good order. Also that I wish I had read this first ;)
    Like Reply Reply
  • Why thank you, Jennifer. And thanks for stopping by.
    Like Reply Reply
  •  

    abelniak 5 days ago
    Great stuff, Mike. I've put off creating a posterous account, but might now. Like others have, I've done the rest already (except the Gravatar, too). I like this post in combination with one of your other posts (The Plumbing of Social Marketing - http://www.holland-mark.com/blog/2009/09/the-pl...).
    Like Reply Reply
  • This is a great article! It was very reassuring to me because I am following those exact steps already. I am a recent college graduate who is revolutionizing my marketing theory learned in college by applying new concepts to brand myself online. Content is what is most important on the internet today. By building your own personal brand online shows companies that you know how to brand on the internet. It is always interesting to me to Google my name and see my content creation grow and grow. Thanks for the information!
    Like Reply Reply

    btrandolph 13 minutes ago
    interesting post, Mike. I've started a few posterous blogs and marvel at how easy it is to post and "cross-pollinate" content. maybe a little too easy. back in october, chris heuer called out a "self-brander" for cutting and pasting chris' stuff and chris brogan's into his own blog, adding an "all rights reserved" at the bottom. I did a write-up of the brouhaha at http://btrandolph.com/2009/11/double-take-shari.... ironically, I got called out last week after reposting a techcrunch article (with full attribution) on my http://smbar.posterous.com site. the problem? I tweeted about the article with a link to my posterous site rather than techcrunch. in the eyes the follower who chastised me, this is stealing content, not sharing it.

    the way to build a personal brand is by creating content. the content hub you describe is a great way to support that brand with shared content. remember, though, that great gravy cannot disguise poor (or nonexistent) meat.
  •  

    Ok You Luddites, Time To Chill Out On Facebook Over Privacy (via techcrunch)

    my favorite quote from this techcrunch rant yesterday: "Honestly, a picture of you taking a bong hit in college is mice nuts compared to the mountain of data that is gathered and exploited about every single one of us every single day. You just don’t really see that other stuff because those companies don’t like to talk about the data their gathering. I don’t see an Equifax blog post outlining exactly how they are gathering and selling your information, for example."

     

    In 2004 everyone freaked out when Gmail launched because Google would be reading your emails to figure out what ads to serve you. “Privacy advocates objected to the advertising model, which involves Google’s robot eyes scanning every e-mail for keywords and displaying contextual advertisements alongside a user’s inbox,” noted Wired.

    That might sound familiar to your great-great-great grandparents. Supposedly many people were apprehensive about using telephones in the early 1900s because they knew the phone companies could listen in on their phone calls. There are people who won’t use phones today because of the ease in which calls can be tapped.

    But the rest of us seem to be ok with Gmail. And our phone. That’s because the benefits of those products far outweigh the privacy costs. And people are going to be just fine with Facebook, too. Even if they did do a switcharoo on privacy settings a month ago that is still reverberating through the tech press.

    Contrary to published reports, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg did not say “the age of privacy is over” in my interview with him last Friday evening at the Crunchies. You can watch the video here for yourself. What he said is that he wants Facebook to change with its users, and keep its product fresh. Which is exactly what they are doing.

    The fact is that privacy is already really, really dead. Howard Lindzon nailed it the other day when he said “Equifax, Transunion, Capital One, American Express and their cousins raped our privacy,” Everything we do, everything we buy, everywhere we go is tracked and sitting in a database somewhere. Our location via our phone, or our car GPS. Our credit card transactions. Everything. Honestly, a picture of you taking a bong hit in college is mice nuts compared to the mountain of data that is gathered and exploited about every single one of us every single day. You just don’t really see that other stuff because those companies don’t like to talk about the data their gathering. I don’t see an Equifax blog post outlining exactly how they are gathering and selling your information, for example.

    The point is that we like Facebook. Very, very few of us are going to stop using it. It was inevitable that they’d rip the bandaid off and try to get their users to make data public. It’s what’s best for Facebook. And if users hate it enough, someone else will launch a competing service that has different policies and thrive. You can guess what the odds of that happening are.

    I spoke to Blippy CEO Philip Kaplan earlier tonight. Blippy is a service that lets users publish everything they buy with their credit cards.

    Crazy right? Who’d want to do that? Well, apparently a lot do. The company has let in 2,500 people so far. Those 2,500 people are publishing $200,000 worth of purchases a day to their friends. It’s less than a month old and they’ve tracked $3.8 million in transactions already, with an average transaction size of $46.

    And more than 10,000 people are on the waiting list to get an account and gladly share their consumption behavior with the world.

    Why are they doing it? To share what they’re buying, and talk about it. Or to let advertisers see what they like and tailor offers to them. Or something. The point is, we don’t really care about privacy anymore. And Facebook is just giving us exactly what we want.

    via techcrunch.com

    twitzophrenia: the hard road to critical mass

    warren sukernek (@warrenss on twitter) wrote a post today on his blog twittermaven expressing his consternation on what he calls the 'top twitter users,' as reckoned in a recent issue of people magazine. to be fair, the people article more accurately described them as the twitter users with the most followers, but for warren, the damage was done. I learned of the post through a tweet from diane hessan (@communispaceceo), who wrote that "just reading this post made her want to cancel her twitter account."

    I replied that lots of idiots drive, but that doesn't make me want to sell my car. snark aside, however, two points:

    1) some metrics say nothing without context. the post headline defines top twitter users as those with the most followers. yes, britney has 4MM followers, while poor chris brogan struggles along with less than 120K. however, which _uses_ twitter more? how many of britney's followers have tweeted at all in the past week? the last month? how many does she follow back and interact with?

    I've met chris maybe once. he has a twitter stream the size of a small city, but when I comment on one of his blog posts or tweets, he has never failed to respond. a metric that I would be interested in seeing that wouldn't matter to people magazine at all is some kind of interactivity measure incorporating retweets, conversations and the like. klout's service is a step in that direction.

    2) diane's tweet and warren's reply to a commenter above are indicative of what I would forcedly coin 'twitzophrenia.' we, the early adopters, evangelize the potential of twitter. we entreat clients and friends to join us and shake our heads at naysayers who decry the service as an exercise in trivial egotism. at the same time, however, we have this vision of twitter as our clubhouse and look down our noses at those who joined mainly because they read some celebrity did or that it was the in thing to do.

    twitter's explosive growth has come because people like us didn't wait to learn the right way to use it. who are we to criticize if people who come after us choose to use it a different way?

    what do you think? can the twitterati (myself included) have it both ways?

    better than real time? meet the intention web | the qualified yes

    exec summ: remember when you learned about today’s news tonight or tomorrow? now news is showing up on the web and search results as soon as it happens. what’s next? meet the intention web.

    when I saw a headline from  jeremiah owyang’s blog earlier this month about ‘ the intention web,’ I figured it had to be an onion.com-style gag (see below).

    I mean, what with all the talk recently about moving to a real-time web, with search results appearing a nano-second after the query is entered, it’s amusing to think about questions being answered before they’re asked.

    but owyang was serious in his discussion of a web-driven paradigm in which users communicate not just what they are  doing right now, but what they plan to do in the future. owyang states

    Some may call this the anticipation web, intention web, or forward looking web, but regardless of the name, there are some unique opportunities:  1) People can now use their social relationships that have similar goals or events on their cal and improve their experience.  2) They can also identify who in their social circles are most likely going where, increasing their knowledge of top events.  3) This provides businesses with the ability to listen to provide highly contextualized offerings and experiences for those explicitly stating their intents. Once a listening strategy is developed, expect Social CRM to be in the foreground mining, organizing, and making this data actionable.

    ok, interesting, but not something that will change my life today. jeremiah published a followup post that listed examples of practitioners of the intention web, and I started to get it.

    one of the examples was meetup.com. say you see an event posted for one of your meetup groups that you might be interested in attending. one of the features of the meetup site is that it lets you see who has already said they will be there. you see that a few friends or colleagues have rsvp’d. now, you might have been interested enough to sign up even if no one you knew was going. however, the knowledge that people you knew would be there too can often tip the scale to a “yes” response.

    this goes back to an earlier post about  the power of affinity. I hypothesized that personal connections can be a powerful motivator, even if the connection is unrelated to the primary call to action. the phenomenon is also a confirmation of owyang’s assertion that the intention web is a force to be reckoned with.

    beyond social events – think about the last business event you were deciding whether to attend. if you signed up online through eventbrite.com or a similar service, you probably had the chance to peruse the attendee list. whether you’re in the big apple or a formerly sleepy little town like boston, the exploding number of options for how to spend your time is forcing a lot of people to  examine their scheduling priorities. input from the intention web will be more and more a factor.

    owyang predicts that the real time web will “quickly evolve into the intention web.” remember that what he is talking about is a voluntary phenomenon. it takes advantage of information that users proactively put out on the web. he closes his post with of vision of a future where “you walk into a store with your preferred items, meal, or drink already nicely packaged for you.” sounds good to me.

    in the wake of this week’s facebook privacy policy changes, however, I suspect there will be marketers eager to capitalize on an inadvertent intentional web, where information is shared without the knowledge or express consent of the individual. for the intentional web to achieve its potential, controls on the use of the information will need to be in place. the same holds for the real time data currently available.

    what do you think about the idea of the intentional web? what uses do you see for this type of information? share your thoughts in the comments and retweet the information if you think it’s interesting.

    Facebook Testing Reply by E-mail Feature (via mashable)

    this will be helpful for people like me who might hop on facebook "just for a sec..." hours later, coming up for air!

    Finally, all of those e-mail notifications you get from Facebook might become useful, as it appears that the social network is testing functionality that lets you reply to status updates (and conversations you’re involved with via others’ updates) via e-mail.

    The feature’s not enabled for everyone yet, but DownloadSquad has seen it and says “it works seamlessly and it’s fast.” We’ve contacted Facebook to try and get some more details on when it’s being rolled out to more users, and also if it might apply to Facebook messages (we can dream, right?).

    In addition to being a useful functionality, this is actually a fairly significant strategic move by Facebook, as essentially they’ve decided to sacrifice pageviews (by not forcing you to log in to comment) for conversation. In the long-term, that’s probably a smart decision, as it makes the Facebook social graph even stickier and alternatives (like Twitter) less necessary.

    Update: A Facebook spokesperson tells us: “We are testing this feature and hope to roll it out to all users soon.”

     

    Anniversaries Are the New Birthdays on Facebook (via mashable)

    which one is the netbook anniversary?

    Since the beginning, Facebook has incorporated birthdays into its social DNA. Part of the fun and utility of Facebook is wishing each of your friends a Happy Birthday note on their walls while rushing to the store to buy gifts for them at the last minute.

    Now Facebook is (finally) including another important annual celebration into the social network’s mix: the anniversary. Facebookers that are happily (or unhappily) in a relationship or joined in holy matrimony can now go to their relationship status and add the specific day, month, and year in which they became a couple.

    Facebook was originally a website for college students, so it makes sense that the company didn’t have this feature back then. Since then though, millions of married and/or committed couples have joined the service, so this is simply a natural extension of the social graph. Congratulating happy couples on their five year anniversary is just another way for Facebook to consume even more of our Internet time.

     


     

     

    Facebook's New Privacy Changes: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly | Electronic Frontier Foundation

    the dark side of facebook's drive to improve privacy settings for users


    Facebook's New Privacy Changes: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

    Commentary by Kevin Bankston

     

    Five months after it first announced coming privacy changes this past summer, Facebook is finally rolling out a new set of revamped privacy settings for its 350 million users. The social networking site has rightly been criticized for its confusing privacy settings, most notably in a must-read report by the Canadian Privacy Commissioner issued in July and most recently by a Norwegian consumer protection agency. We're glad to see Facebook is attempting to respond to those privacy criticisms with these changes, which are going live this evening. Unfortunately, several of the claimed privacy "improvements" have created new and serious privacy problems for users of the popular social network service.

    The new changes are intended to simplify Facebook's notoriously complex privacy settings and, in the words of today's privacy announcement to all Facebook users, "give you more control of your information." But do all of the changes really give Facebook users more control over their information? EFF took a close look at the changes to figure out which ones are for the better — and which ones are for the worse.

    Our conclusion? These new "privacy" changes are clearly intended to push Facebook users to publicly share even more information than before. Even worse, the changes will actually reduce the amount of control that users have over some of their personal data.

    Not to say that many of the changes aren't good for privacy. But other changes are bad, while a few are just plain ugly.

    The Good: Simpler Privacy Settings and Per-Post Privacy Options

    The new changes have definitely simplified Facebook's privacy settings, reducing the overall number of settings while making them clearer and easier for users to find and understand. The simplification of Facebook's privacy settings includes the elimination of regional networks, which sometimes would lead people to unwittingly share their Facebook profile with an entire city, or, as Facebook's founder Mark Zuckerberg explained in a recent open letter, an entire country.

    Perhaps most importantly, Facebook has added a feature that we and many others have long advocated for: the ability to define the privacy of your Facebook content on a per-post basis. So, for example, if you only want your close friends to see a particular photo, or only your business colleagues to see a particular status update, you can do that — using a simple drop-down menu that lets you define who will see that piece of content.

    Most important, however, is the simple fact that as part of this transition, Facebook is forcing all of its users to actually pay attention to the specifics of their privacy settings. Considering that many if not most users have previously simply adopted the defaults offered by Facebook rather than customizing their privacy settings, this is an especially good thing.

    No question, these are positive developments that hopefully will lead more people to carefully review and customize their level of privacy on Facebook. Unfortunately, the new flexibility offered by per-post privacy settings, a definite "good," is being used to justify the "bad"...

    The Bad: EFF Doesn't Recommend Facebook's "Recommended" Privacy Settings

    Although sold as a "privacy" revamp, Facebook's new changes are obviously intended to get people to open up even more of their Facebook data to the public. The privacy "transition tool" that guides users through the configuration will "recommend" — preselect by default — the setting to share the content they post to Facebook, such as status messages and wall posts, with everyone on the Internet, even though the default privacy level that those users had accepted previously was limited to "Your Networks and Friends" on Facebook (for more details, we highly recommend the Facebook privacy resource page and blog post from our friends at the ACLU, carefully comparing the old settings to the new settings). As the folks at TechCrunch explained last week before the changes debuted:

    The way Facebook makes its recommendations will have a huge impact on the site's future. Right now, most people don't share their content using the 'everyone' option that Facebook introduced last summer. If Facebook pushes users to start using that, it could have a better stream of content to go against Twitter in the real-time search race. But Facebook has something to lose by promoting ‘everyone' updates: given the long-standing private nature of Facebook, they could lead to a massive privacy fiasco as users inadvertently share more than they mean to.

    At this point there's no "if" about it: the Facebook privacy transition tool is clearly designed to push users to share much more of their Facebook info with everyone, a worrisome development that will likely cause a major shift in privacy level for most of Facebook's users, whether intentionally or inadvertently. As Valleywag rightly warns in its story "Facebook's New ‘Privacy' Scheme Smells Like an Anti-Privacy Plot":

    [S]miley-face posturing aside, users should never forget that Facebook remains, at heart, not a community but a Silicon Valley startup, always hungry for exponential growth and new revenue streams. So be sure to review those new privacy "options," and take Facebook's recommendations with a huge grain of salt.

    Being a free speech organization, EFF is supportive of internet users who consciously choose to share more on Facebook after weighing the privacy risks; more online speech is a good thing. But to ensure that users don't accidentally share more than they intend to, we do not recommend Facebook's "recommended" settings. Facebook will justify the new push for more sharing with everyone by pointing to the new per-post privacy options — if you don't want to share a particular piece of content with everyone, Facebook will argue, then just set the privacy level for that piece of content to something else. But we think the much safer option is to do the reverse: set your general privacy default to a more restrictive level, like "Only Friends," and then set the per-post privacy to "Everyone" for those particular things that you're sure you want to share with the world.

    The Ugly: Information That You Used to Control Is Now Treated as "Publicly Available," and You Can't Opt Out of The "Sharing" of Your Information with Facebook Apps

    Looking even closer at the new Facebook privacy changes, things get downright ugly when it comes to controlling who gets to see personal information such as your list of friends. Under the new regime, Facebook treats that information — along with your name, profile picture, current city, gender, networks, and the pages that you are a "fan" of — as "publicly available information" or "PAI." Before, users were allowed to restrict access to much of that information. Now, however, those privacy options have been eliminated. For example, although you used to have the ability to prevent everyone but your friends from seeing your friends list, that old privacy setting — shown below — has now been removed completely from the privacy settings page.

    Facebook counters that some of this "publicly available information" was previously available to the public to some degree (while admitting that some of it definitely was not, such as your gender and your current city, which you used to be able to hide). For example, Facebook points to the fact that although you could restrict who could see what pages you are a fan of when they look at your profile, your fan status was still reflected on the page that you were a fan of. But that's no justification for eliminating your control over what people see on your profile. For example, you might want to join the fan page of a controversial issue (like a page that supports or condemns the legalization of gay marriage), and let all your personal friends see this on your profile, but hide it from your officemates, relatives or the public at large. While it's true that someone could potentially look through all the thousands upon thousands of possible fan pages to find out which ones you've joined, few people would actually do this.

    Facebook also counters that users can still control whether non-friends can see your Friends List by going into the hard-to-find profile editing settings on your profile page and changing the number of friends displayed on the public version of your profile to "0" unchecking the new check-box in your Friends setting that says "show my friends on my profile". However, if the goal with these changes was to clarify the privacy settings and make them easier to find and use, then Facebook has completely failed when it comes to controlling who sees who you are friends with. And even if you do have some control over whether non-friends can see your friends list — if you hunt around and can find the right setting, which is no longer under "Privacy Settings" — Facebook has made the privacy situation even worse when it comes to information sharing with the developers of Facebook apps.

    The issue of privacy when it comes to Facebook apps such as those innocent-seeming quizzes has been well-publicized by our friends at the ACLU and was a major concern for the Canadian Privacy Commissioner, which concluded that app developers had far too much freedom to suck up users' personal data, including the data of Facebook users who don't use apps at all. Facebook previously offered a solution to users who didn't want their info being shared with app developers over the Facebook Platform every time a one of their friends added an app: users could select a privacy option telling Facebook to "not share any information about me through the Facebook API."

    That option has disappeared, and now apps can get all of your "publicly available information" whenever a friend of yours adds an app.

    Facebook defends this change by arguing that very few users actually ever selected that option — in the same breath that they talk about how complicated and hard to find the previous privacy settings were. Rather than eliminating the option, Facebook should have made it more prominent and done a better job of publicizing it. Instead, the company has sent a clear message: if you don't want to share your personal data with hundreds or even thousands of nameless, faceless Facebook app developers — some of whom are obviously far from honest — then you shouldn't use Facebook.

    These changes are especially worrisome because even something as seemingly innocuous as your list of friends can reveal a great deal about you. In September, for example, an MIT study nicknamed "Gaydar" demonstrated that researchers could accurately predict a Facebook user's sexual orientation simply by examining the user's friends-list. This kind of data mining of social networks is a science still in its infancy; the amount of data that can be extrapolated from "publicly available information" will only increase with time. In addition to potentially revealing intimate facts about your sexuality — or your politics, or your religion — this change also greatly reduces Facebook's utility as a tool for political dissent. In the Iranian protests earlier this year, Facebook played a critical role in allowing dissidents to communicate and organize with relative privacy in the face of a severe government crackdown. Much of that utility and privacy has now been lost.

    The creation of this new category of "publicly available information" is made all the more ugly by Facebook's failure to properly disclose it until today — the very day it is forcing the new change on users — when it added a new bullet point at the top of its privacy policy specifying this new category of public information that will not have any privacy settings. The previous versions of the policy, however, either didn't disclose this fact at all, or buried it deep in the text surrounded by broad assurances of privacy.

    For example, in its previous privacy policy before it was revised in November, Facebook didn't specify any of your data as "publicly available information," and instead offered broad privacy assurances like this one:

    We understand you may not want everyone in the world to have the information you share on Facebook; that is why we give you control of your information. ... You choose what information you put in your profile, including contact and personal information, pictures, interests and groups you join. And you control the users with whom you share that information through the privacy settings on the Privacy page.

    Meanwhile, the privacy policy as updated in November did specifically call out certain information as "publicly available" and without privacy settings nearly half-way down the page, surrounded by privacy promises such as these:

    • "You decide how much information you feel comfortable sharing on Facebook and you control how it is distributed through your privacy settings."
    • "Facebook is about sharing information with others — friends and people in your networks — while providing you with privacy settings that you can use to restrict other users from accessing your information."
    • "you can control who has access to [certain information you have posted to your profile], as well as who can find you in searches, through your privacy settings."
    • "You can use your privacy settings to limit which of your information is available to 'everyone.'"

    These statements are at best confusing and at worst simply untrue, and didn't give sufficient notice to users of the changes that were announced today.

    In conclusion, we at EFF are worried that today's changes will lead to Facebook users publishing to the world much more information about themselves than they ever intended. Back in 2008, Facebook told Canada's Privacy Commissioner that "users are given extensive and precise controls that allow them to choose who sees what among their networks and friends, as well as tools that give them the choice to make a limited set of information available to search engines and other outside entities." In its report from July, The Privacy Commissioner relied on such statements to conclude that Facebook's default settings fell within "reasonable expectations," specifically noting that the "privacy settings — and notably all those relating to profile fields — indicate information sharing with 'My Networks and Friends.'"

    No longer. Major privacy settings are now set to share with everyone by default, in some cases without any user choice, and we at EFF do not think that those new defaults fall within the average Facebook user's "reasonable expectations". If you're a Facebook user and you agree, we urge you to visit the Facebook Site Governance page and leave a comment telling Facebook that you want real control over all of your data. In the meantime, those users who care about control over their privacy will have to decide for themselves whether participation in the new Facebook is worth such an extreme privacy trade-off.

    Related Issues: Privacy

    [Permalink]

    via eff.org