With our limitless capacity for outrage these days, it’s always nice to read a sober and reasonable take on the kerfuffle du jour. Today, it’s ITIF’s Daniel Castro’s memo on the Facebook privacy imbroglio.
For those who missed it, the world’s most popular social networking site has come under fire for its recent changes to its privacy policy. In the crosshairs are two new innovations: instant personalization and social plugins. Instant personalization is a pilot program that allows a few partners — Yelp, Microsoft Docs, and Pandora, to date — to use data from a Facebook user’s personal profile to customize their experience on their site. The latter enables websites to place a Facebook widget on a page, which would allow users to click on a “Like” button or post a comment that would automatically show up on a user’s Facebook feed. In both cases, users have to opt out of the service if they don’t wish to use it.
The changes predictably sparked an uproar from Facebook users and privacy advocates. The indignation even swept through the halls of Congress, with lawmakers registering their displeasure. But as Castro reminds us, it’s all much ado about not much:
Many Internet companies clearly intend to continue to find innovative ways to use personal data to deliver products and services to their customers. While Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg may or may not “believe in privacy”, it is clear that Facebook thinks that companies should respond to changing social norms on privacy and that the overall trend is towards more sharing and openness of personal data. So going forward, no Facebook user (or privacy fundamentalist) can continue to use the service without admitting that the benefits of using the website outweigh any reservation the user has about sharing his or her personal data. As the saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
Certainly some users may still object to this tradeoff. But if you don’t like it, don’t use it. Facebook is neither a right nor a necessity. Moreover, it is a free tool that individuals can use in exchange for online advertising. In fact, one high-profile Facebook user, the German Consumer Protection Minister Ilse Aigner, has already threatened to close down her Facebook profile in protest of Facebook’s new privacy policies. Users that feel this way about Facebook’s changes should vote with their mouse and click their way to greener pastures. Companies respond to market forces and consumer demands, and if enough users object to the privacy policy of Facebook, these individuals should be able to find a start-up willing to provide a privacy-rich social networking experience.
Castro doesn’t weigh in on whether Facebook did, in fact, violate its stated privacy policy, leaving that question to the Federal Trade Commission and noting that any organization that deviates from its policy should be held liable.
But the outcry that greeted the revelation that a corporation might use valuable consumer information for its benefit is a real Capt. Renault moment. My guess is that after the fuss dies down, most users will stay on Facebook, recognizing that the benefits of using it outstrip the risks and inconveniences. If the scandal makes people more informed and vigilant about personal data and privacy — both online and off- — then all the better.
Of course, online privacy remains a big, unresolved issue, and we need to continue to press government to update our laws to protect consumers in a fast-evolving information environment. But, as Castro points out, the next time Facebook changes its privacy policy, “let’s not act like this is a national emergency.” We consumers actually have a lot more power than we think we have.