Are we wiser about Facebook now, or just more cynical?
This week, a New York Times feature with more data and privacy revelations about Facebook triggered the usual range of responses, from exhaustion to numbness. With so many similar reports over the past year, it’s been a steady drip, drip, drip of privacy violations and post-hoc rationalizations and apologies. At this point, most people seem more than happy to see Mark Zuckerberg as Satan, and Facebook as a vast force for evil in the world. This week, a number of prominent users like former Wall Street Journal tech columnist Walt Mossberg, NBC News correspondent Kasie Hunt, the actress/singer Cher, and Columbia University law professor/author Tim Wu have even said they are deleting their accounts in protest.
1/ Some personal news: I've decided to quit Facebook around the end of the year. I am doing this – after being on Facebook for nearly 12 years – because my own values and the policies and actions of Facebook have diverged to the point where I’m no longer comfortable there.
— Walt Mossberg (@waltmossberg) December 17, 2018
Without minimizing the real privacy violations Facebook has committed over the years, and its refusal to confront these kinds of issues head on, some of the reporting feels a little unfair. The Times piece, for example, conflates a series of different features and projects that Facebook worked on years ago, some of which were relatively innocuous (as Verge writer Casey Newton pointed out in his newsletter), and makes it sound as though Facebook was rifling through the drawers of your desk, and then sharing your personal documents with anyone who asked for them.
ICYMI: Mark Zuckerberg seems “genuinely peeved” during interview
Among other things, it implies that Facebook and Spotify were doing illicit things with your Facebook messages, while in reality an API simply allowed you to share songs with friends. It suggests Yahoo had suspicious amounts of access, but that access was provided so users could display their Facebook feed on a customized home page, something they presumably agreed to (the Times elaborates on this in a sidebar to the original piece). Everything is lumped under the heading of “granting other companies access to parts of the social network in ways that advanced its own interests.”
The hill I am going to have to reluctantly die on:
Facebook is a bad company that's done lots of bad things! But "sharing the contents of messages" was to make in-app messaging work! And people who don't understand APIs shouldn't write opinion pieces on this!
— James Ball (@jamesrbuk) December 20, 2018
Could Facebook have been a lot more open about these kinds of API deals and what they involved? Of course they could have. And it probably wasn’t smart to leave the back door open API-wise after the features in question were shut down. But it’s also worth remembering that, at the time those features were announced, lots of people thought they were a great idea, not just Mark Zuckerberg. If anything, some critics saw it as a good thing that the social network was opening up its walled garden and allowing more competing services to integrate, as a way of leveling the competitive playing field. There were concerns raised about the privacy implications of Facebook’s “instant personalization” features, as in the infamous Kara Swisher and Mossberg interview in 2010 (during which Zuckerberg perspired so much Swisher was afraid he was having a heart attack). But for the most part, the average user seemed to feel that sharing music or likes with their friends was a handy feature.
Was this naive? Maybe, but hindsight is 20/20. If you had told anyone in 2006 that 10 years in the future, Russian agents would use the illicitly obtained “likes” and clicks of Facebook users to create psychographic profiles for targeting of fake news headlines in an attempt to elect Donald Trump president, you would have been sent for a mandatory psych evaluation. Facebook was seen as many things at that point: young and brash, likely out of its depth, not too smart about mobile, a place for wholesome memes and photos of your aunt’s new puppy, etc. That’s not to say there weren’t people raising red flags along the way, because there were, including experts like sociologist Zeynep Tufekci, Swisher, and others. But for the most part, the sharing deals were roundly endorsed—even The New York Times itself signed up for such a deal, as it admits in a sidebar to its main piece, because it was trying to make its website more social.
These Facebook data partnerships are a reminder of how Mark Zuckerberg always wanted Facebook to work: As a ubiquitous social layer on top of the internet. He's since said that vision was wrong, but it's still haunting the company. https://t.co/zwOyJH68PE
— Kurt Wagner (@KurtWagner8) December 19, 2018
More than anything, the Times story and others like it are like looking back through time at a more innocent version of ourselves, a time when Facebook seemed like a mostly harmless social toy (as Twitter did) and Zuckerberg a giant nerd who had somehow managed to create this social juggernaut. It’s like watching a movie of people in the 1920s or the 1950s, and all the things they did and said that seem so farcical to us now (“Soon we’ll be flying our own jet-cars to work!” said Popular Science). The pendulum has swung on Facebook—and in fact all social media—to the point where many seem to feel there are no redeeming features to any of it, and it should all be consigned to the trash heap of history.
If we’re going to come to a realistic appraisal of what exactly social platforms like Facebook (or Twitter) can and should do, then we need to be clear about what exactly is involved, so that we can make rational decisions. If an API that allows us to share things with our friends also technically gives other apps access to things like our contact list, is that something we are prepared to agree to, and on what terms? If Facebook can be criticized for anything—and there are clearly lots of things that belong on that list—it’s for not being more open about what it was doing in the first place. This lack of transparency inevitably made it seem as though it had ulterior motives once everyone figured out what was actually going on. But portraying every move the company has ever made, no matter how small or well-intentioned, as a massive privacy disaster isn’t helping.
ICYMI: A special privacy feature available only to Facebook executives
Every 30 seconds, a female journalist or politician is harassed on Twitter
Any woman who has spent more than a couple of hours on Twitter has likely experienced some form of casual harassment or even outright abuse—and these attacks are even more likely if the woman in question happens to be a journalist or a politician. On Tuesday, a new report from Amnesty International put some numbers […]
NPR’s move into podcasting analytics raises privacy concerns
Until recently, it hasn’t been easy to measure the success of podcasts, beyond how many people download them—a metric so broad as to be almost useless, much like page views are on the web. In the past year or so, Apple and Spotify have both come out with analytics on their platforms that tell producers […]
Australian sexual abuse case raises questions about gag orders
If a judge in a different country issues an order preventing the media from discussing a trial, do media outlets in the US have a duty to abide by that order? Or is there a larger duty to keep the public informed? This isn’t a hypothetical example. An Australian court just found Cardinal George Pell, […]
Google’s CEO actually shows up in Congress this time
Unlike the last time Congress held a hearing designed to put Google on the hot seat—an August session of the Senate intelligence committee that featured a prominent empty chair with Google’s name on it—CEO Sundar Pichai actually showed up to this one, a question-and-answer session with the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. And if nervousness […]
Did The Washington Post pull its punches on Amazon and USPS?
Let’s admit one thing up front: covering Amazon for a newspaper owned by the company’s founder, Jeff Bezos, has to be almost impossible. Even though Bezos has made it clear he has no interest in micro-managing what The Washington Post writes about, and executive editor Marty Baron has repeatedly said he never hears from Bezos […]
British parliament releases contentious Facebook emails
When a British parliamentary committee looking into Facebook’s role in misinformation and data privacy seized documents last week from an American businessman involved in a lawsuit with Facebook, the committee threatened to make the files public, even though they were sealed by a California court order. And that’s exactly what it did on Wednesday: Damian […]
Mic shuts down, a victim of management hubris and Facebook’s pivot to video
For anyone who has been watching digital media, the fact that millennial news site Mic is effectively shutting down—laying off most of its 100-plus journalists and selling what remains of the company to Bustle, according to multiple reports on Thursday—should come as no surprise. CJR ran a story in September, “Mic looking for investors amid […]
British parliament drops the kid gloves in Facebook fight
When Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg refused to appear before Britain’s parliament in May to answer questions about Facebook’s role in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, he may have assumed there would be few repercussions. But in an unprecedented move over the US Thanksgiving weekend, the British government used a little-known feature of UK law to compel a tech […]
Wikipedia’s co-founder wanted to let readers edit the news. What went wrong?
It’s been almost a year since the launch of WikiTribune, the crowdsourced news site created by Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia. If you haven’t heard of WikiTribune, you’re not alone—it hasn’t made a big splash outside hardcore digital-media circles. But it’s an ambitious project, one that was designed to democratize the news as a Wikipedia-style […]
Does the Assange indictment pose a threat to journalism?
In what appears to have been a cut-and-paste error, a routine filing in a completely unrelated court case revealed on Thursday that the Justice Department has finally laid charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The filing was a request for the court to seal all documents related to a case involving a man named Seitu […]
Facebook’s instinct to deny, then apologize is baked into its DNA
A new feature from The New York Times takes an in-depth look at Facebook’s response—or rather, lack of response—to criticism about Russian trolls using its platform to spread disinformation both before and during the 2016 election. The piece points fingers at a number of senior staff, including the company’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, as […]
CNN drops the gloves, sues Trump over Acosta press pass
Perhaps it’s not surprising that, after two years of unrelenting hostility from Donald Trump and the White House towards the media, it would come to this: a lawsuit filed on Tuesday in federal court by CNN, against the president and several members of his administration—including Press Secretary Sarah Sanders and Chief of Staff John Kelly—for […]
Google CEO’s China argument doesn’t hold water
There’s a new interview with Google CEO Sundar Pichai in The New York Times, in which he talks about his upbringing in Chennai, India—where he and his siblings all slept on the floor, and he dreamed of one day having a refrigerator—and the challenges he faces as the chief executive officer of one of the […]
Facebook slammed by UN for its role in Myanmar genocide
In the wake of the midterm elections on Tuesday, tempers seem to be running hot at the White House: Attorney-General Jeff Sessions, who drew the president’s ire by recusing himself from the Russia investigation, handed in his resignation on Wednesday at the request of the president, not long after Trump shouted down several reporters during […]
Facebook blocks racist Trump ad, but the damage is already done
After the Trump campaign produced and distributed a campaign ad last week that conflated the issue of violent crime and the so-called caravan of migrants headed for the US border, several broadcast networks including CNN decided it was racist, and refused to put it on the air. Even the traditionally Trump-supporting Fox News network chose to […]