Thanks to Mopflite for the link to the following article about the problems with Facebook
Now, ignore the Luddite bashing at the opening and the unsubstantiated, pejorative use of the phrase neo-con, when I suspect, at most, he means neo-liberal.
The issue is about privacy. There is something very insidious and disturbing about Facebook. Prof. Moglen, whose course I took last semester, explained it very well and unfortunately, I am not eloquent enough to replay his comments, and unfortunately neither does this article, whose tone is a little too knee jerk. But the author does pick up on the unsettling, disquieting issue that some of us feel about Facebook.
As Prof. Moglen said the parasite when it lands on you, sends a mild, brief anaesthetic so you don’t notice the next step, which is the extraction of blood. As with the Beacon service, push the proboscis in too quickly, and the host reacts.
Social networking is wonderful, one of the great activities the internet has delivered us. However, there is a right way to do it and a wrong way. The right way, such as file sharing, works when it is properly distributed, decentralised and truly autonomous. Facebook is none of these things. Peel away the Web 2.0 pseudo-openness and the fun of interacting with friends, and there is still someone there controlling it, no different to Microsoft or Google, and getting something out of your using it.
Hopefully, some other new wonder will come along and take away everyone’s attention from Facebook, as with MySpace before it, but there will still be a lingering sense that the majority of users, and this includes geeks, are still not really cognisant of the issues of online privacy. Being such a new medium, users still suffer from cognitive dissonance when it comes to privacy of data.
The default setting is “I have nothing to hide and there is no cost to my giving my personal information away freely.” Yet you absolutely do not know how your data is going to be used and once you submit your data, there is no way of getting it back. We assume there is no cost to giving away our data because we do not, currently, directly feel the cost. Yet to assume there is not, never will be and can’t be one is erroneous. And herein lies the cognitive dissonance. The default setting should be “I will give no data except for a limited, controlled set when I know exactly how it will be used”.
There is a large experiment going on with users and their data, and the usual code of ethics surrounding experiments is subjugated when users click on “I agree to the Terms and Conditions and have read the privacy policy” when they haven’t.
Update: Just found this blog entry by a fellow who was in the Moglen class I audited. I remember asking Tim O’Reilly in 2002 whether a GPL for user contributed data was needed, to which he replied “no”. I seem to remember thinking that he had not understood my question.