“Facebook and Radical Transparency” (a rant) -Danah Boyd
-Dec 2009: Facebook users became upset over the company’s decision to significantly alter the privacy settings options on Facebook
-http://www.allfacebook.com/facebook-privacy-new-2009-12
-https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-privacy-changes-good-bad-and-ugly,
- user’s “likes”, “interests”, profile pictures, and other content were automatically publicized
- there was no “opt-in” function
-Facebook attempted to justify their privacy-related decisions by claiming that the changes are good for everyone – and that it “gives you more control of your information.”
-Zuckerburg (2009): You have one identity. The days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for other people you know are probably coming o an end pretty quickly…Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.”
-Kirkpatricks “The Facebook Effect:” The older you are the more likely you are to find Facebook’s exposure of personal information intrusive/excessive
-non-marketing data has refuted this claim: youth are more concerned about exposure than adults
- Zuckerburg believes that people and society will be “better off” if they make themselves more transparent
- Zuckerburg genuinely believes that people WANT to expose themselves and make themselves public (via self-branding)
-Jeff Jarivs: we cannot confuse “ *a public with *the public
-everyone has and wants their own “public” on Facebook, not to be confused with the public as in, everyone on the web/facebook
-“people want to engage in public, but not the same public that includes everyone”
-Facebook was originally a counterpublic (a public people turned to because they didn’t like the public they had access to )
-Boyd criticizes Facebook’s own lack of transparency through their use of language and the interface design:
-People have misconceptions about their privacy settings and which content is shared with which users (via terms like “everyone” and “friends -of-friends”)
-Boyd: “If Facebook wanted radical transparency, they could communicate to suers every single person and entity that can their content”
-Instead, they “hide behind lists because peoples abstractions allow them to share more”
-“users have no sense of how their data is being used & FB is not radically transparent in what that data is being used for”
-the “battle” is over “choice and informed consent” not the future of privacy & publicity
-Facebook only gives users the “illusion of choice and hides the detail away from them ‘for their own good’”
-Key to addressing the problem is not a public vs private debate
–>We need to make sure people are:
1) informed
2) have the right to choose
3) are consenting w/out being deceived→ “slowly disintegrating the social context without choice isn’t consent its trickery”
-People feel mistrust towards the company and sense of entrapment by the service
A Few questions:
Considering Zuckerburg’s quote above, do you he has the right to force Facebook users to adhere to his perception of identity by limiting their privacy-setting options? Is having multiple identities for oneself a sign of lack of personal integrity?
Do you think that it is necessary for people to be ‘radically transparent?’ In other words, does ‘radical transparency’ necessarily lead to authenticity, or does it rather, hinder our abilities to express our natural complex selves?
I think having multiple options to control one’s image and identities online is imperative to self-expression. I also believe that Zuckerburg’s statement is extremely pompous and shows that he fails to understand the complexities of identity—that online identity is not equivalent to RL identity. Facebook should not be and is not the sole device in defining someone’s identity, but it certainly seems that Zuckerburg feels that it is.
mdeseriis, 
Mediated Subjectivity 
MarioCedeno363 8:13 pm on November 20, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree with boyd’s argument that Facebook is violating people’s privacy in a variety of ways. What I especially find disturbing is the amount of data and information that the company stores about all of its users. I recently read this article http://goo.gl/luHbM which explains the ways in which the company stores data and tracks users movements online. I particularly found shocking the fact that upon signup, Facebook inserts a tracking cookie into user’s browsers that keeps a running log of all of the web pages that the user has visited for the past 90 days that contain a Facebook plug in such as a “like” button, even when the user is not logged into the site. My concern is how this information can/will be used in the future, and also if people will be able to hack and get information on people and use it for harmful purposes. To answer your question, I disagree with Zuckerburg’s belief that society will be better off if they make themselves more transparent. As boyd pointed out, Zuckerburg will be better off and his bank account will be larger if people do this, but society will not be better. I think people being “radically transparent” may potentially be harmful to society because it may lead people to not explore facets of their identity for fear or it being made public. Also, how “radical transparency” will affect society is unknown because the ways in which companies such as Facebook are using all of the data on users is unknown and not transparent at all.
mollieableman 9:21 pm on November 20, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree with Mario. Just now as I was exploring the know your meme website I realized it had my profile picture and full name from facebook for me to use if I wanted to make a comment. The fact that I did not even CHOOSE to log in with this information really disturbs me and feels like a violation. At no point was I given the choice to share that information, and I rather facebook not know every single thing I look at on the web. Its supposed to be a social networking site, not a human tracking site! I also do not think that society would improve from radical transparency. I often feel that facebook is not a place where I can freely express my opinions because I know it will always offend at least one person, since I am friends with people from all different aspects of my life, teachers, family, childhood friends, colleagues ect. ect. I know some people are capable of stating there opinions without the fear of offending but I rather have those conversations in person where there is less of a chance of misinterpretations. A heated discussion online is very different from one held face to face. So if Zuckerburg’s idea is to have “radical transparency” on facebook, I for one am not and will not be participating. I also agree with Boyd that the use of users information without their knowledge is hugely hypocritical since Zuckerburg wants transparency. I also don’t think its Zuckerburg’s right to try and dictate how society should function, he is a internet mogul…not the Dalai Lama.
emilyellens 12:11 am on November 21, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In terms of your first question I think Mark Zuckerberg technically has the “right” to create the social networking site that adheres to his personal philosophy (and boyd says that she believes that Zuckerberg really does support his radical transparency.) However, I don’t personally agree with it and I think many many users of Facebook don’t agree with it but remain on Facebook and as boyd suggests, the reason is likely because of all the user generated material that makes Facebook what it is, a reason that I personally had a difficult time getting rid of my own Facebook account, I felt like it was a personal record of six years of my life. However, the point obviously is that it’s not personal at all. I can’t help but think Zuckerberg’s philosophy is weak and comes from personal insecurity and trust issues (might be reaching here, but oh well.) I think that you’re right in suggesting that it does not lead to authenticity. Facebook primarily has a reputation of ruining the reputations of others which leads to increased censorship. Facebook may eventually just turn into a website that sells your information about internet activity to corporations, etc. because even though people will feel less incentivized to add to that community, they might not necessarily delete their accounts because of the lack of transparency in Facebook itself.
Veronika Höglund 12:17 am on November 21, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I actually had read the USAToday article myself, and too found an obvious correlation between Boyd’s discussion and that of Acohido. My main concern, along with the surveillance of sorts that Mollie and Mario mentioned, but in addition the things that Facebook doesn’t tell you they are doing. I remember, I believe it was sometime last year, Facebook began giving personal information on their site to businesses, companies, and organizations. They weren’t exactly clear about the fact that they were doing this and unless you found out on your own and un-checked the box that gave Facebook your permission to do this, they would go ahead and give out your information. It is things like this that are of tremendous concern – even more so that they get away with doing this. It often seems that most people tend to disagree with the conduct of these sites but because of social and cultural pressure almost are forced to be involved.
mdeseriis 2:47 pm on November 28, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Excellent summary and excellent questions Daria. As a matter of fact, they sparked a very interesting conversation both online and in class.