techPresident - Facebook rethinks Beacon - Comments

tactics and integrity

Freedomfighter — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:00:54 -0500

Micah,
Your absolutely missing it. The issue here is tactics and integrity. In the long run, what turns people off politics is its lack of integrity, which is the result of ugly and immoral tactics.

First off, facebook users did not need MoveOn. They have successfully battled for privacy with facebook before.

Secondly, moveon deliberately avoided the protocol for disputing privacy violations. In making their accusations, they did not encourage people to contact facebook or go through their arbitrator Truste.org, a privacy organization.

Third, moveon has NO EXPERTISE in addressing privacy issues. They deliberately inflamed the most paranoid people instead of providing instruction on how to preserve privacy. Moveon neglected to tell people of the vast numerous violations of privacy made possibly simply because people do not take the proper precautions in guarding their privacy on the internet.

Fourth, moveon had no interest in winning or losing a battle with facebook. The sole purpose of setting a group on facebook was to maliciously recruit facebook users to moveon through a high profile media campaign. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO SINCERE EFFORT BY MOVEON TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT PRIVACY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT A PRIVACY ORGANIZATION AND HAVE NO EXPERTISE IN THIS AREA.

Now, I am sorry if I have offended you or any reader in putting the previous matter in capitals. However, I think many have underestimate the damage moveon does to political movements as a whole, and what damage they do to the specific issues.

Moveon has provided an example of what makes people HATE politics. In the short term, it appears like a brilliant success. In the long term, it encourages apathy and disillusionment.

What MoveOn "hype"?

Micah L. Sifry — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:57:48 -0500

Freedomfighter:

You may not like MoveOn's politics, but what exactly bothers you about an e-group with millions of members who take action in concert with each other?

If the media treats MoveOn like an 800-pound gorilla, and it doesn't deserve that attention (if in your view they're really a paper tiger), then isn't your beef with the media, not MoveOn?

Besides, lots of influential netizens who understand the ecology of the internet (like David Weinberger and Ethan Zuckerman) raised alarm bells about Facebook's having violated the unwritten rule of permission-based marketing, which is that you ask people to opt into a service or list. Personal privacy is a delicate matter online and the best approach is to respect it.

What fascinates me about this tempest is that it pits two digital natives against each other: Mark Zuckerberg, age 23, vs Adam Green of MoveOn, age 31.

I also like that MoveOn is paying attention to the emerging structure of the social web. They challenged MySpace over disappearing activism profiles there last spring (calling for habeas corpus for user profiles), they've worked to nudge Facebook to open up its rules for e-groups to allow better organizing to take place, and now this. As more of us live with integrated social networks online as part of our lives, these rules and norms are quite important to debate and hammer out.

Of course their not going to put in a universal opt out feature

Freedomfighter — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:23:51 -0500

Since MoveOn dropped in like an 800 pound gorilla, Facebook is not certain what is responding to: MoveOn hype or genuine concerns of Facebook users?

Facebook rethinks Beacon

Fred Stutzman — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:19:39 -0500

As reported in various blog and print sources, Facebook has announced changes to Beacon, the controversial ad program. According to the reports, there will be a change to the story posting flow, requiring users to approve a story before it is sent to the Newsfeed. This does address some of the concerns regarding information leaks through Beacon.