4 ms·

+ a bushelful for pointing out that Facebook's UI is deliberately disingenuous: It encourages people to share information while carefully obscuring how widely t

+ a bushelful for pointing out that Facebook's UI is deliberately disingenuous: It encourages people to share information while carefully obscuring how widely that information is being shared. Do people who share their status with "everyone" really understand that their entire history of updates are being scraped and aggregated by "partners," or do they think that it's only being read by people who happen to search for them personally? As the author puts it, it's a case of a lack of informed consent. And that is unethical.

natrius 17y ago
How could they possibly explain all of the implications of "everyone" that people might be worried about? It says everyone. If there's something you don't want every single person on the face of the planet to be able to read, don't set things to "everyone". I don't think the problem is people underestimating friends of friends. It's not knowing when they're sharing with everyone. Instead of having to click a button below the status box to see who you're going to be sharing with, the current setting should be displayed on the button itself so it's always visible.
- raganwald 17y ago
  I think the expression "informed consent" is the crux. If a doctor is discussing a procedure with you and they say, "there are certain risks," it is not enough that they tell you, they must make sure you actually understand the implications well enough to make a reasonable decision. Informed consent is a much higher standard than simple "consent." The argument here is that while Facebook may technically be telling you everything you need to know, they aren't actually achieving informed consent. If you mistakenly think "everyone" means everyone who uses Facebook personally, you haven't given them informed consent to share your information with a credit bureau.
  - natrius 17y ago
    I think the doctor comparison is apt. You're basically asking for Facebook to give the sort of fine print that gets read quickly at the end of pharmaceutical ads. Barely anyone would accept the new default if you said: Possible side effects of this setting include: Getting fired for your political beliefs, inability to get a loan due to a status update that indicated financial irresponsibility, and a speedy end to any political campaign you attempt to start. This seems like a pretty big double standard. Twitter is public by default, but no one is setting the same bar for informed consent. The issue isn't the change from private to public; I think most people who accept that default understand that their posts are no longer private by default. I don't see why explaining more is necessary. This privacy change happened in December, by the way. If it weren't for Instant Personalization, this firestorm never would've happened.
    - raganwald 17y ago
      > I don't see why explaining more is necessary. perhaps you and I should get clear on the word necessary. Here's a thought experiment: Imagine we poll some statistically significant number of users and ask them questions about their own settings like "Can your mother see this? Do you think you could be denied a job if you were to post this?" and so forth. One possibility is that the vast majority of the people would get the answers right. They understand the implications and are happy with their choices. The other possibility is that some large number of respondents don't get the answers right, indicating that they don't understand the implications. The standard I feel is appropriate for all companies trafficking in information with such serious potential outcomes is that their customers understand the implications of their choices. How much explaining is necessary? I say enough to achieve understanding. It's flat-out unethical to conduct a business where a substantial proportion of your 'customers' do not understand the implications of doing business with you. Of course, the plural of anecdote is not "data." Maybe the OP has it wrong and most Facebook users understand what choices they are making and simply don't value their privacy as much as outraged nerds on a forum. I'm not saying it's wrong for Facebook to share people's data with "everyone," only pointing out that IMO it would be unethical to do so if a significant proportion of their users did not give their informed consent.
      - natrius 17y ago
        I agree wholeheartedly.
webwright 17y ago
I'm not sure it's deliberately disingenuous (though it's certainly disingenuous). I think this is a side effect of putting a bunch of REALLY smart hackers in charge of the UX at Facebook. It's lost it's simplicity in favor of power. People keep asking for power/control, and Facebook adds it. Rinse/repeat and we have more knobs and levers than most users can really grok without a pretty big investment in time.
- kareemm 17y ago
  > People keep asking for power/control Who does? Most users I know of any system (hackers included) prefer simplicity.
  - webwright 17y ago
    Really? Have you ever fielded support requests for a startup? You'll be BURIED in feature requests and you'll master the art of saying "probably not" without pissing off users. And you'll probably say "yes" way more often than you should. Of course users WANT simplicity-- they also want their software to do everything that want it to do. This is how bloated software gets built. Do you have an alternate explanation as to why smart product designers would make privacy controls complex/powerful rather than simple/less-customizable? Do you really think they are TRYING to confuse people?
    - kareemm 16y ago
      > Do you have an alternate explanation as to why smart product designers would make privacy controls complex/powerful rather than simple/less-customizable? Do you really think they are TRYING to confuse people? Sure. I think it's in Facebook's best interest to make their users' data as public as possible. It would run counter to FB's interests if they had privacy settings that were as simple as: - "Hide all my stuff" - "Show my stuff to friends only" - "Show my stuff to friends of friends" - "Show my stuff to the whole wide world" I've yet to hear a good explanation as to why the default FB privacy option has become more and more open, while they added more granular privacy controls. Which likely means there isn't one that benefits users as much as it does Facebook. > Do you really think they are TRYING to confuse people? No. But I do think that responsible product design is about making difficult decisions for the benefit of one's users. And Facebook is shirking that responsibility by putting its own needs ahead of its users... while putting the onus on users to restore their privacy settings to what they were when they signed up by using confusing tools.

natrius 17y ago

How could they possibly explain all of the implications of "everyone" that people might be worried about? It says everyone. If there's something you don't want every single person on the face of the planet to be able to read, don't set things to "everyone". I don't think the problem is people underestimating friends of friends. It's not knowing when they're sharing with everyone. Instead of having to click a button below the status box to see who you're going to be sharing with, the current setting should be displayed on the button itself so it's always visible.

raganwald 17y ago
I think the expression "informed consent" is the crux. If a doctor is discussing a procedure with you and they say, "there are certain risks," it is not enough that they tell you, they must make sure you actually understand the implications well enough to make a reasonable decision. Informed consent is a much higher standard than simple "consent." The argument here is that while Facebook may technically be telling you everything you need to know, they aren't actually achieving informed consent. If you mistakenly think "everyone" means everyone who uses Facebook personally, you haven't given them informed consent to share your information with a credit bureau.
- natrius 17y ago
  I think the doctor comparison is apt. You're basically asking for Facebook to give the sort of fine print that gets read quickly at the end of pharmaceutical ads. Barely anyone would accept the new default if you said: Possible side effects of this setting include: Getting fired for your political beliefs, inability to get a loan due to a status update that indicated financial irresponsibility, and a speedy end to any political campaign you attempt to start. This seems like a pretty big double standard. Twitter is public by default, but no one is setting the same bar for informed consent. The issue isn't the change from private to public; I think most people who accept that default understand that their posts are no longer private by default. I don't see why explaining more is necessary. This privacy change happened in December, by the way. If it weren't for Instant Personalization, this firestorm never would've happened.
  - raganwald 17y ago
    > I don't see why explaining more is necessary. perhaps you and I should get clear on the word necessary. Here's a thought experiment: Imagine we poll some statistically significant number of users and ask them questions about their own settings like "Can your mother see this? Do you think you could be denied a job if you were to post this?" and so forth. One possibility is that the vast majority of the people would get the answers right. They understand the implications and are happy with their choices. The other possibility is that some large number of respondents don't get the answers right, indicating that they don't understand the implications. The standard I feel is appropriate for all companies trafficking in information with such serious potential outcomes is that their customers understand the implications of their choices. How much explaining is necessary? I say enough to achieve understanding. It's flat-out unethical to conduct a business where a substantial proportion of your 'customers' do not understand the implications of doing business with you. Of course, the plural of anecdote is not "data." Maybe the OP has it wrong and most Facebook users understand what choices they are making and simply don't value their privacy as much as outraged nerds on a forum. I'm not saying it's wrong for Facebook to share people's data with "everyone," only pointing out that IMO it would be unethical to do so if a significant proportion of their users did not give their informed consent.
    - natrius 17y ago
      I agree wholeheartedly.

webwright 17y ago

I'm not sure it's deliberately disingenuous (though it's certainly disingenuous). I think this is a side effect of putting a bunch of REALLY smart hackers in charge of the UX at Facebook. It's lost it's simplicity in favor of power. People keep asking for power/control, and Facebook adds it. Rinse/repeat and we have more knobs and levers than most users can really grok without a pretty big investment in time.

kareemm 17y ago
> People keep asking for power/control Who does? Most users I know of any system (hackers included) prefer simplicity.
- webwright 17y ago
  Really? Have you ever fielded support requests for a startup? You'll be BURIED in feature requests and you'll master the art of saying "probably not" without pissing off users. And you'll probably say "yes" way more often than you should. Of course users WANT simplicity-- they also want their software to do everything that want it to do. This is how bloated software gets built. Do you have an alternate explanation as to why smart product designers would make privacy controls complex/powerful rather than simple/less-customizable? Do you really think they are TRYING to confuse people?
  - kareemm 16y ago
    > Do you have an alternate explanation as to why smart product designers would make privacy controls complex/powerful rather than simple/less-customizable? Do you really think they are TRYING to confuse people? Sure. I think it's in Facebook's best interest to make their users' data as public as possible. It would run counter to FB's interests if they had privacy settings that were as simple as: - "Hide all my stuff" - "Show my stuff to friends only" - "Show my stuff to friends of friends" - "Show my stuff to the whole wide world" I've yet to hear a good explanation as to why the default FB privacy option has become more and more open, while they added more granular privacy controls. Which likely means there isn't one that benefits users as much as it does Facebook. > Do you really think they are TRYING to confuse people? No. But I do think that responsible product design is about making difficult decisions for the benefit of one's users. And Facebook is shirking that responsibility by putting its own needs ahead of its users... while putting the onus on users to restore their privacy settings to what they were when they signed up by using confusing tools.