Facebook Serves as Own Example of How Web Bites Back

What Happens When You Post Something Without Thinking It Through

Posted by Josh Stylman on 02.17.09 @ 05:52 PM

Facebook inadvertently made the news on President's Day when Consumerist reported a change in the social networks's terms of service. In short, Facebook's new TOS indicates that it owns all the data that users upload to their system. In fact, it goes a step further to suggest that the company may "retain archived copies of your User Content" even if you terminate your Facebook account. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg felt it necessary to personally respond to the concerns, noting that Facebook's terms are consistent with many web-service providers.

To me, the issue here isn't whether Facebook's privacy policy is appropriate. That's a question that is already being chewed over by countless blogs and news sites right now. Thinking that deleting a picture from Facebook or a post from your blog erases it from the internet is na�ve at best. I suspect many people will realize that it's a whole lot harder to make dubious content go away than it was to upload in the first place. Facebook's new TOS merely reflects this reality in the inartful, insulting language that only a team of lawyers could craft.

The problem that Facebook is facing at this point is one of perception. The company did the bare minimum to publicize its TOS changes: It mentioned them on its blog, which most users are unaware of. As a result, the company appeared to be sneaking an unpopular change into their TOS in the dead of night.

What Facebook forgot is that whether we are sending out "official" information through the auspices of a press release or casually dishing about a meeting on Twitter, it's all out there and it's all discoverable –- often without going further than an initial search on Google.

Regardless of your individual perspective, the one certainty is that there has never been a lower barrier to produce and distribute content for others to see. With that emerges a new responsibility for people (and companies as well) to think about their own digital footprint. While I'd like to think that it's common sense, we've all seen that's not the case. The irony is that Facebook sent up a red flag to its users saying, "Be careful what information you surface online and how you surface it" and then promptly fell into the same trap that its TOS was warning users against.

I've personally seen numerous recent examples where thoughtlessly posting information on a social network has led to problems either personally or professionally for the postee.

Exhibit A: A friend recently told me about a candidate she was interviewing for a job. The candidate seemed great in person. As a formality, they were checking her references, as well her social profile -- now a routine stop in many companies, including mine. When they got to her Facebook profile, they found a message from one the candidate's friends asking, "You wanna meet for drinks?" To which the candidate responded, "Sure, gotta go meet the whores at BrandX first though." Needless to say, she didn't get the job.

Exhibit B: The gentleman from Ketchum PR who not only managed to insult his client, but the entire city of Memphis by Twittering "True confession but I'm in one of those towns where I scratch my head and say, 'I would die if I had to live here.'" The problem is he was flying there at that moment to meet with FedEx, a huge client that is practically synonymous with Memphis. That message probably took two seconds to think of and another eight to type. In just 10 seconds of effort, he has a blemish on his resume forever, and caused an issue for his company with a major client. Any potential client, employer or business colleague that looks for him on Google will get page of search results dominated by commentary about his lapse in judgment.

I can go on with endless examples, including ones that might seem too ridiculous to be true -- like the 20-somethings that were arrested in the Bahamas just last week for grilling and eating an Iguana (an endangered species). How'd they get caught? They posted their photos to Facebook, and authorities quickly found them. Surely, people operating on that rarified level of stupidity should get caught, but the bottom line is that people need to realize that what we once knew as privacy has changed forever, especially online.

All of these examples may seem like casual activities but they all involve sharing of information, or data if you will, that once unleashed can wreak all kinds of havoc.

What does this all mean to companies that are taking their tentative first steps towards engaging with customers via social media? The next time your company, or an individual representing your company, writes on someone's Facebook wall, Twitters something or posts to a message board, stop and think about how you'd react to that content being publicly accessible down the road. Remember, digital assets live on forever, and search engines will ensure that no stone will go unturned. When you realize your skeletons can be just a Google search away, maybe it's time to take a deep breath and use some common sense.

~ ~ ~
Josh Stylman is managing partner at Reprise Media. Follow him on Twitter @jstylman

8 Comments

By Nakeva | Washington, DC February 17, 2009 10:59:54 pm:

You pose some interesting points on incidents where a person carelessly posted content online. Watching the Facebook terms of service issue unfold the last two days has been a reminder to pay attention to what you put out on the web, both from the standpoint of any website and the end user. I initially put out a quick blog post based on reading the post from The Consumerist, which you mentioned. I knew nothing of the change in the Facebook TOS prior to reading that post. Not one email, no site-wide message, no personal message above my profile as they do for birthdays, and no other visible indication to alert me to the fact there were changes...TWO WEEKS AGO.

I'm curious how this will progress and eventually settle for Facebook and its users.

Permalink

By rachelc | London February 18, 2009 02:44:39 am:

They've just changed them back due to the 'good feedback' and are thinking what they are going to do. There's always a difference between real privacy and perceived privacy - and between control over what you put up on the web.

Yes, if something goes up on the web, then it's likely to be there forever. But if you put stuff on Facebook to a small group of friends with all the privacy controls locked down, you don't expect to see it in a advert, even after you have left the site.

The other thing for me was the impact of these new terms on brands - what do their lawyers think when reading the terms about alowing their content onto the site

Permalink

By nickkinports | Chicago, IL February 18, 2009 11:12:04 am:

I will say this - ADMAVEN saw the most organic search traffic on any series of articles in it's history. A lot of people were very concerned about the implications - it was smart of FB to change things back and encourage community outreach for new TOS rules.

http://www.twitter.com/admaven

http://admaven.blogspot.com

Permalink

By MONICA | WATERTOWN, MA February 18, 2009 04:41:01 pm:

Next, will customers demand a share of any revenue Facebook can generate? More on the Influence 2.0 blog http://bit.ly/J5Dvs

Permalink

By mondogrande | Ft Lauderdale, FL February 19, 2009 01:04:19 pm:

The perceived anonymity of the internet has brought out the worst in people. By appealing to their vanity (does anyone under 14 years old really care what someone is doing at every moment), peoples sense of self importance has escalated. I can only think of the old expression, "opinions are like...everyone has one."

Most TOS at some point state something like, "We may change these terms at anytime without notification." and they encourage the user to check back periodically for changes. A TOS is bascially a contract between the user and company. When agreeing to any contract people should know enough to remember caveat emptor.

http://www.proudtoliveinamerica.com

Permalink

By TOM | STAMFORD, CT February 19, 2009 01:28:05 pm:

Agree with the reaction to the new TOS, but felt the response by Zuckenberg was good. I posted about it on my blog yesterday, along with some tips for Facebook and other companies who may be involved in managing CGM. We've done a lot of work in this area, and these companies need to learn to trust their user community a bit more, if they do they can even be leveraged to keep moderation costs down etc.

Post here: http://www.tomhcanderson.com/2009/02/18/we-the-people-of-facebook/

Tom H. C. Anderson
Managing Partner
Anderson Analytics, LLC

Permalink

By KHyde | Ridgewood, NJ February 19, 2009 01:52:16 pm:

Harriett Pearson, who's IBM's chief privacy officer, spoke quite compellingly on privacy policies and social media at a Japan Society of New York panel discussion in October 2008. The archived video is at http://www.japansociety.org/digital_social_responsibility_video (see especially her Q&A comments)-

Permalink

By lwsmith10011 | new york, NY February 20, 2009 08:39:30 am:

Facebook has once again broken the bonds of trust. Many people do not care, others do not understand, and fewer still will take any action, but that does not minimize the stupidity of thinking one could simply make a proclamation and expect millions of people to agree that you can take their work. "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine too. Forever."

Permalink