Getting what you pay for online — or not
December 11, 2009 by Valerie HelmbreckPosted in: Communication, Facebook, In this week's e-newsletter, Information security, Latest News & Views, User behavior, Web 2.0, Web sites, cloud computing, cybercrime, e-commerce, social networking
Okay, so Facebook’s got new privacy features that actually makes your profile info less private than it was in the past. And Rupert Murdoch’s whining that free content on the Internet’s gonna slurp up his billions made selling faux news on TV. Does anybody get what they want online anymore?
Well, I must admit that this holiday season some health problems are preventing me from shopping in stores and forcing me more than ever to buy presents online. So far, I’ve got no complaints with the stuff I’ve bought.
I buy an item online, the seller ships it, I receive it and we’re all happy. End of story.
But therein, I believe, lies the crux of the ongoing problem with online transactions, be they social networking exchanges or “news stories” from amateur journalists.
The old rules still apply to new technology: You get what you pay for. If you want information to be private, don’t think you can stash it on a free Facebook account. The shock of Facebook addicts when the site’s owners “monetize” their information by selling it to marketing firms is somewhat laughable. And, if you want credible reporting by trained journalists who’ll get fired if they make things up, you’ve gotta pay for that too.
Let’s first look at Facebook, which is first and foremost, a business. It has to make money to survive. The commodity they have to sell is your information. Users of Facebook want to enjoy the forum but not accept any of the risk that’s involved in sharing intimate details of their life in a free and very public space.
Now, in the immortal words of Casablanca’s Captain Renault: “I”m shocked, shocked to find out…” that the owners of this free, public forum are actually trying to make a buck off of my fun!
I’ve got just one question Facebook fans: How’s this whole free Facebook thing working out for you?
The same goes for Mr. Murdoch, who had no qualms about selling tainted right-wing propaganda as news on his network, but now is crying foul because the public’s appetite for news that fit their views is cutting into his profitable business model.
Look, anybody can make up facts and present them as truth to support a point of view. It takes discipline and layers of nasty editors to flush out the charlatans in the news business — and even then a few sneak by. To get real journalism, you have to hire a whole gaggle of trained reporters and keep a real short leash on them. And that costs money — that has to be recouped by the sale of the news to a discerning and demanding public.
What Murdoch created was a fantasy-land kind of reporting that allows all the news that fits the narrow perspective of the audience.
And my question for him: How’s that working out for you, Rupert?
To read an excellent overview of the new Facebook policies and just how insidious these “upgrades” to privacy really are, check out the post by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
To read about Mr. Murdoch, well, do a Google search.
FinanceTechNews.com delivers the latest Finance news once a week to the inboxes of over 150,000 Finance professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to FinanceTechNews!
Tags: controls, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Facebook, information, privacy, Rupert Murdoch
December 15th, 2009 at 10:13 am
First, you mentioned that you have had health issues recently, so I hope you are feeling better. It sucks to be sick.
Just for the record, I’m anti-Facebook and feel that Murdoch is irrelevant.
A couple of items here…
1. There is absolutely no connection between Murdoch and Facebook, and re-reading your article, I’m failing to connect the dots… Can you elaborate?
2. Facebook is a toilet. I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep saying it. Nothing good can ultimately come from “free-form” unmoderated social networking. Like putting a large group of people in a small room, it will eventually end in a riot. It will all eventually come to a bad end, because people as individuals can’t be trusted. That’s not to say that ALL social networking is evil — compare to product ratings on Amazon, which I find 1000 times more useful, and also happens to be highly moderated and structured.
3. Facebook doesn’t know what it wants to do. People with deep wallets are still trying to figure that out. Facebook DOES know that it has a cornucopia of information — some personal, some PRIVATE, some derivative, and some proprietary. Personal information is information about you, PRIVATE information shouldn’t be on Facebook at all — which I think was part of your thesis, derivative information is the induction, deduction, or correlation of data to form new data (e.g. microdemographics) and proprietary data are things like research performed on user interface design. The question is: What does all this mean, and how can they exploit it? There was a case recently where a Texas Mom sued Facebook because a plugin or app inappropriately accessed her Blockbuster online account to show other people what she had been renting. What was the perceived value behind THAT idea??
4. YOU own your privacy. The best way to have your cake and eat it, too is to give sites like Facebook a bunch of fake information. You can still connect with your friends, play games, and whatever the heck people DO with Facebook, and you’re getting it truly for free because you handed them something of no value in exchange for unlimited access. Likewise, who cares if they disclose personal information that was really PRIVATE information, because your private information is all fake. Your REAL friends know who you are.
Example: I used to maintain my contacts through Plaxo. Last year, I started getting e-mails from my contacts around Jan 1 saying: “Happy birthday!”. My birthday is in September. Plaxo had decided to share my birthday with all of my contacts, so we can all have each others’ personal information (I consider my birthday to be PRIVATE), and all sing Kumbaya while we’re at it. WELL, what if I DON’T WANT sales guys who I have in my contact list sending me birthday cards, using that as an excuse to try to set up a lunch meeting to sell me some crap I don’t need. I politely responded: “Thank you for the sentiment, but that’s not my real birthday.”, and promptly unsubscribed from Plaxo. They conduct an exit interview when you disable your account, and I ripped them a new one for the way this had been handled. Had I gotten an e-mail a year ago stating: “NOW, you can add your birthday to your profile!” that would have been a nice heads-up. Instead, they just did it, and put me in the position of reacting to it, and the same is true with Facebook. Let’s all sing Kumbaya now. (begin sarcasm) Because we all have THE RIGHT to know EVERY DETAIL ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE, down to what they are doing RIGHT THIS MINUTE (end sarcasm).
5. Let’s talk about social engineering. Then again, let’s not. Nothing new can be added to that topic, except to say that toilets such as Facebook are vectors for all sorts of people who are too stupid to work for a living but clever enough to manipulate enough morons away from their money to never have to work a day in their life.
6. Your rant about Murdoch seems a bit off. I agree that slanted content presented as legitimate journalism is bad – LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE. That does not mean that slanted content is not a valid channel for the people who like to listen to slanted content. They have a right to know that the content is slanted. It’s tempting to say: “Murdoch is evil!” It’s tempting to say: “Let’s pass a law!” but the reality is that if you monitor every content channel, who monitors the monitors? Who defines the rules? Isn’t it enough to widely publicize facts and discrepancies using legitimate news channels (I mean channel in the virtual sense, not TV channel), thereby educating the masses. Those that stubbornly choose to believe a slanted viewpoint and accept that as reality (LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE) are and deserve to be victims of social Darwinism.
My thesis point was that Murdoch is irrelevant. Are you going to get mad at magazines such as the Inquirer, who have a reputation for publishing blatantly false content, or at the morons who choose to believe allegedly-blatantly false content, thereby keeping the Inquirer in business? Water seeks its own level, and each of us can choose to seek higher ground (or drown in crap — thus my point about Darwinism).
Why waste your time and get so angry about something that’s irrelevant.
December 15th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Oh…. one more point.
I can’t stress enough that you should ALWAYS give fake information. This is the online equivalent of using Tivo to skip the commercials.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Bob, your post was much appreciated and a lively read. Many thanks.
As for connecting the dots, my overarching point here is that consumers online are unhappy — even if they’re getting a lot of what’s available on the Web for free — or at least they believe it’s free. My point is that free relationship building/nurturing/reinvigorating isn’t really free. It costs you your privacy, because the owners of these sites need to make money to keep the sites operational. So site owners barter your “private” info to advertisers, con artists or any other commercial interest that will pay for them. And users are agast. Go figure.
The news business has become something of the same. We’re now all getting news slanted in the direction that suits our particular world view. Most of that news is free and comes from amateur, would-be reporters — or “news” organizations who hire talking heads to spin the news in a particular direction — with no real oversight and fewer journalistic ethics. We find out these new sources aren’t credible (when we get false reports, unverified or unanalyzed data) and we’re scammed into either going to war or supporting national health care.
Either way, we’ve gotten something for free and it’s worth just about what we pay for it. My gripe isn’t with the folks who give away news content or swap social networking info, but with the consumers who persist in refusing to pay for what they want — privacy and solid, verified and well-vetted information.
Thanks for the good wishes on my health. And keep writing…I don’t believe lousy reporting (in the Enquirer or the New York Times) is irrelevant, but you’re welcome to believe something entirely different. I won’t make me angry in the least…
December 15th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
geez talk about ranting…
January 20th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
I agree with “bored”. This was nothing more than a liberal rant (”tainted right-wing propaganda”; “charlatans in the news business”, etc.) trying to disguise itself as a legit, factual article…which interstingly enough was pretty much what she was complaining about. I guess it’s the usual case of “do as I say and not as I do”.
March 10th, 2010 at 5:41 am
Get real dude! Microsoft rules.