In my previous post about Facebook in which I presented a work around for the whole tickertape disaster, I put forward the idea that they might be doing something rather more devious. I've spent much of this evening poking around reading stuff and here's an interesting thing.
Suppose you like reading about - oh, I don't know - disaster new items, celeb gossip, things that you enjoy, but would rather your friends didn't know. We all do it now and then - the juicy item on the front of a red top that we buy just to see who did what to whom when. Innocent enough. However, what if the person next to you in the carriage looked over your shoulder and then stood up and announced to the entire train carriage 'This person is reading a story about celebrity xyz!' you wouldn't be keen. Well, get used to it, because if you're not really, really careful, that's exactly what Facebook intends to do.
There's a really good story over at RWW on this which is worth reading, but let me expand a little more. There's a bunch of new apps/pages coming to Facebook, such as the Guardian app and one from the Washington Post. Both of these are doing something very interesting - the mere act of READING an article posts it as news. There is no 'Liking', no recommending - the simple fact of reading the specific article is all that's needed to tell everyone - not just your friends exactly what you're reading. Look at the FAQ from the Washington Post: "Once you're in the app, everything you read will be visible to your social network. On Facebook, you scroll through your friends' status updates and view photos - now it's just as easy to check out what they're reading... Everything you read within the app will be published to your Facebook network and the WP Social Reader app itself."
Over on the Guardian app page we see something similar. "Can everyone see what I read? The Guardian Facebook app is a "social reading" environment. Your Facebook friends will be able to see links to articles you have read within the Guardian app environment, and you will be able to see what they have been reading. We think this will help people discover content that they might be interested in." So that's a yes then. Of course, they're at pains to reassure you that everything is fine and dandy. "On any page, at any time, you can simply click the "Remove from timeline" link." So it's an opt out process, rather than an opt in process. And how long is it going to be that easy, I wonder? Given the complexity of Facebook options, this'll disappear into the morass real quick.
So, the effect is going to be that if you decide to use the app not only will what you read be shared with your friends - pretty much like it or not, it is going to clog up their news feeds or tickertape app, your news feed is going to get really messed up, and you lose control over your reading privacy. I'm not really into the whole 'it'll be a better experience for you' line, since actually it won't. If for no other reason that I'm not entirely sure that I DO want to know which of my friends are keen to read about which celeb is shagging which other celeb. 'Too much information' springs to mind. It's a real shame to see the Guardian getting involved with this sort of malarky - I had thought better of them. Of course, this is only the beginning of the story. I can easily see the day when simply remaining logged into Facebook and visiting other sites is going to get your browsing history spread around to everyone else. So what's the idea? Why is Facebook doing this sort of stuff? I think it's because people are sharing less and less with everyone, and more with select friends, lists and groups. Facebook thrives on openness, learning from their cattle (sorry, users) so that they can throw even more advertising at us. There is a constant striving towards inclusion - 'See what your friends do! You should be the same! You must do whatever your community does! You are not a free man, you are a Facebook user!'
If people think that Facebook is bad now, it's shortly going to get a whole lot worse, and you/me/we will have even less privacy. That really worries the heck out of me, and it should really worry you as well.
What does the ap do apart from letting people see what you read? Is its whole purpose to show people what you read? Because I'm not sure what else it might be good for, but it seems odd to write a concerned article that essentially says "If you use an ap designed to let people see what you're reading, as a consequence, people will be able to SEE WHAT YOU'RE READING!" Is the point not to opt in to a social experience whereby you share this information?
Posted by: Max | September 24, 2011 at 11:51 PM
Yeah, I think you're rather missing the point Max, or I didn't explain myself clearly enough. The app is designed primarily for you to read news items. So that you can stay within Facebook but still read the Guardian. Second point - if I want to share what I'm reading, that should surely be my choice shouldn't it? And shouldn't I also be able to choose who I share that information with? Which bit of all of that didn't I make clear the first time around?
It could also be argued that while Facebook IS a social experience, you're in an environment where you don't necessarily show everyone what you're doing all the time, for various reasons. There has to be the element of choice in what you share and what you don't - if that wasn't the case you couldn't interact privately with people.
Of course, if you're happy doing that, it's cool, but other people have different views.
Posted by: Phil Bradley | September 25, 2011 at 12:11 AM
I can't find anything about the Guardian's, but the Washington Post one makes a big deal about being a thing that lets you share what you're reading and calls it a "social reader", not an "integrated reader" or something that doesn't imply that it's about being social. Quotes are littered all over the web with comments like this:
“The Washington Post Social Reader is a way for people to connect around the day’s latest happenings and discover real-time news with their friends on Facebook,” Donald Graham, chairman and CEO of The Washington Post Company says.
It is a social thing, for connecting, and discovering *with friends*. This is its entire point, so if you don't want your friends to discover what you read, don't want to share and connect and discover and be social, then there's no invasion of privacy, you just go and read the stuff on the Washington Post's own site instead.
Posted by: Max | September 25, 2011 at 08:10 AM
Yes, of course you can still go and read the WP or the Guardian on their websites. However, the reason that they've got these new apps - with others from other companies to follow - is to keep people on the Facebook site. If it wasn't such a big deal they wouldn't have developed them. The point remains however - once you start using a resource like this sharing becomes obligatory, rather than by choice. The mere act of looking at a webpage triggers a response. That is a fundamental change in the concept of 'social' since you're not actively sharing, you're passively sharing.
If you're having problems finding out about the Guardian app can I suggest that you follow the link I've provided to their FAQ page which provides you with more information.
Posted by: Phil Bradley | September 25, 2011 at 10:28 AM
So if you want to read an article you need to click to read on the newspaper direct, not via fb?
Posted by: Vicky Ayech | September 25, 2011 at 11:09 AM
Vicky - there are two ways to do it. Go to the website and read the articles there, and not share anything with anyone unless you choose to. Stay within the Facebook garden and use the Guardian app and share with everyone by default. Oh, third choice is to go out and buy the thing, but no-one does that anymore. :)
Posted by: Phil Bradley | September 25, 2011 at 11:17 AM
Facebook is quite safe. You can alter your privacy settings so only your friends can see your profile, and if you don't want some of your friends seeing everything, you can give them limited access to your profile.
Posted by: orange county tech support | October 07, 2011 at 08:38 AM