Facebook’s stance on user privacy is anything but straightforward. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg claims the concept is irrelevant — but it’s clear from looking at user reactions to the various settings changes over the past 18 months that not everyone on the network agrees with him.
Yet when someone wants to actually do something with that data, the way Pete Warden did, as detailed in the lead story from today’s SmartBrief on Social Media, the network has a decidedly different reaction. Why the shift? Was it because Facebook didn’t stand to profit from giving data away to academics? Was it because it was worried about fan backlash? Maybe Facebook wants the option to do something similar on its own one day?
The explanation that Facebook was worried about creating a historical record of user preferences seems flimsy to me. I’m willing to be that it reasoned that if it was going to upset their users with privacy concerns, it should profit in some way. I’d be surprised if it didn’t look for a way to do just that before too long.
Are you comfortable with the idea of social-media data being used for research? Should Facebook have allowed Pete Warden’s work to continue?
Image credit, gualtiero boff, via Shutterstock
Twitter
Facebook
Linkedin
RSS
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by JasonMMurphy: Should social-media data be used for research? – Facebook’s stance on user privacy is anything but straightforward…. http://ow.ly/16ZIBy...
Social media content creates a body of data that is research. Ranking, influence, trends, and statistics come with the game. Don't play if you don't like the outcome.
It seems irrelevant to me, the real question should be, does anyone still think that social media data isn’t used to market to you by sources from all across the globe (virtual and otherwise). Privacy is only truly obtained by actively seeking it. After all, HIPPA laws protect your medical information until you sign that protection away; furthermore those laws do not actually apply to the pharmaceutical companies. That’s how medical insurance companies know what you were treated for when you didn’t tell them and you paid in cash. Social media is a new spin on everything old. Don’t tell that friend if you can’t completely trust them. Sure that data is compiled and used, why are you worried? What did you tell them?
absolutely it should be used. There is nothing 'private' about being on Facebook and anyone who thinks it is is not thinking clearly.
Facebook should have shut Pete Warden down as soon as they found out what he was doing. He wasn't up front with them about *what* he was doing, *why* he was doing it, and what was in it for *Facebook* or Facebook's customers! Instead, he just went ahead and scraped data. He's lucky he didn't get sued – or worse!
At least he's starting to get the message. He came on the Twitter API Developers' Google Group a few weeks ago and told the group what he wanted to do. He was told that it was a violation of Twitter's TOS. Here's the link:
http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-developmen…
Marketers – *listen* – there's an old saying that it's better to ask forgiveness than permission. *Erase* that notion from your strategy!
My recent post The ‘????? ???????’ story: Shostakovich, musique concrète, Wikipedia, bullshit and curation
YES! Medical data collection is a shady area and is traditionally protected by HIPAA (in clinical settings), but people should know that information they share online can be read by all kinds of people. But social media is an excellent place to ask customers questions and get insight into their needs, wants and thoughts on products.
My recent post EMRs and healthcare providers in social media
I think Facebook needs to stop exploiting its user base and start charging a subscription. Then they should close the network making it 100% private to its users. Since they won’t the minute another network sprouts that does do this there will be mass defections. As it is the site is under used because of the privacy concerns.
I think all studies need to be opt-in and everyone involved asked if they wish to participate.
To collect and act upon data:
1) By the [company] for the benefit of [company] users – yes, with notification. Information still belongs to the user and the company acts as proxy.
2) By company [partners] for the benefit of the [company's] users – yes, with permission. Information still belongs to the user and the company, not the partner, acts as proxy (see also corporate accountability).
3) By [others] for the benefit of [others] – No, permission or not. Once information is sold it belongs to the purchaser; the user completely loses ownership without recourse – this is the hallmark of abuse.
Ownership and control is too easily subverted with "allow [me] to buy [your] user data and I'll deliver targeted messaging that makes your user happier" – a company that now is in no way accountable to the consumer. A company that can now make compromises to support their interests, not the interests of the consumer or originating company. I have a Yahoo Spam Folder that holds about 18,000/mo compromises of my trust that a [company] would "do" in my best interest. And I bet you do too.