Unit Structures: How Facebook Broke its Culture

How Facebook Broke its Culture
Posted 9/07/2006 08:33:00 AM |

In talking this Facebook controversy through with a number of reporters, I came upon a few insights about feeds, which I thought I'd share.

Facebook's shaky standpoint. Facebook takes the stand that feeds introduce nothing "new". Unfortunately, this logic fails because information disclosure is both quantitative and qualitative. Facebook (sort of) gets to claim there is quantitatively no more information being shared (more on this later). Qualitatively, the difference is huge. Information disclosure is multidimensional. Each day, when you put on your clothes, you have assumptions that a certain audience will see you in these clothes. Imagine if every day when you got dressed, everyone saw what you were wearing - wouldn't you agree that is vastly different? And wouldn't it make you feel a little weird? Now multiply this by every information facet shared in the Facebook. Perhaps now the problem makes more sense.
On the nature of friendship in the Facebook. My research has shown that facebook users average hundreds of friends. This means that the nature of friendship is different and culturally unique in the Facebook. Friendship in the Facebook is cultural currency - I link to you and you link to me. Implicit in this is a one-time exchange of social capital, nothing more. However, friendship is an absolutely core element of the service - and with this change, the nature of friendship in the service, and everything that goes along with it, changes. From now on, when you friend someone, you're agreeing to let them have a feed of everything you do - this is a huge difference from the previous notion of friendship, which users were quite comfortable with.
On how users explore each other. The common argument for feeds is that "the information is out there anyway." So it stands, if you wanted to, you could replicate the functionality of feeds by checking your friend's profiles every day. This argument fails because this is not how Facebook users use the service. Facebook users log in to check their messages, respond to pokes, use profiles as "white pages", coordinate events - they aren't logging in to surf profiles endlessly (sure, they do this when they have an exam the next day, but it isn't the normal activity). Why is this? Well, put simply, you know your friends. And the people you've friended that aren't really your friends - sure, you'll check them out from time to time, but that's not how the site is used. In essence, profiles are just a small part of the site.

Users understand this. When they update their profile, they are updating it for a micro-audience of a subset of their friends. They aren't expecting everyone they know to see (or care) about every last minute change in their life. People have a mental model of disclosure, and this change breaks that mental model. Even though "nothing is different", it is clear that something absolutely is different. The privacy of being average is gone.
On updates. Previously, the Facebook would let you know if people updated their profiles, if they changed certain key elements of their profile. With the feeds feature, everything everyone does is shared. Yes, perhaps its fair to say you've updated your profile when you've added new favorite movies and the like - but a chronicle of every friend you add and every wall message you write? Whatsmore, every friend you add and wall message you write broadcast to your entire friend group? This makes people seriously uncomfortable.
Chilling effects. Facebook feeds are the ultimate chilling effect. If you knew everything you did was going to be broadcast to everyone you know, wouldn't you second-guess yourself more? Nuff said.
The falsity of the pageview argument. Apparently (according to the A-list), feeds are a move that undermines Facebook's quest for pageviews. In that sense, we're supposed to feel all fuzzy about how they've introduced this "useful" service against their best interests. False. Facebook users don't check all of their friends profiles - they keep up with a small number of close friends and people they have crushes on. They don't surf to all of their friends profiles every day, nor do they care to. By placing "feeds" in front of users, they are incentivized to check the profiles of people they see in their feeds - thereby increasing page views. That this move isn't self serving is completely false - again, it shows how the A-List, Arrington on down, absolutely don't understand the nuance of Facebook culture.
On a broken culture. What if, one day, you woke up and found that the rules that governed the society you lived in have been dramatically changed? Facebook has a very strong culture, and its users are deeply invested in the service. This strong blow to the core component of the site - friendship - coupled with this complete lack of privacy means the culture of the Facebook has changed. Its users are stunned, reeling - the same way you'd behave if you found out that you had to share every minute detail of your life with everyone you know. In my opinion, this blow to the core culture of the service is the most dangerous thing. Damaged cultures often never fully repair themselves - just ask Friendster.

As a researcher and analyst, I like to stay above being prescriptive. However, the more I analyze this, the more I am becoming convinced that Facebook is wandering into very dangerous territory. So I guess you could stay I'm stepping out of my analyst role, and trying to be a user advocate. Facebook employees - if you read this - know that what you have on your hands is serious as a heart attack.

I like the Facebook. I like what is has brought to campus. I like(d) the way it treated its users. I've invested a lot of time in the Facebook :). But more than I like the Facebook I like my fellow students, my cohort - and I like seeing them comfortable with their online identity. It amazes me that, if this thing was rolled out differently - opt in, with the users being able to select what parts of their profiles could be sent into the feeds - they wouldn't have this mess on their hands. Instead of revolt we'd be talking about an edgy new feature that lots of users would like. But we don't have that - and I'm starting to worry that it might not be possible to put this cat back in the bag.

Permalink | | to this post
View blog reactions | Post to

8 Comments: (Post a Comment)

At September 07, 2006 3:25 PM, Brian said...: People are really up in arms about nothing, if they don't want to have items on their feed (or anything on their feed) it's very easy to handle that. When reading an article on Techcrunch the other day I found this out:
"No new information is being made available about users. Facebook privacy settings remain in their previous state, meaning you can have your information available throughout the network or just among your closest friends. Don?t want a particular piece of information to be syndicated out even to them? Remove any single piece of data by simply clicking the x button next to it and it will not appear in the news feed."
So you just go to your profile page and you look at your Mini-Feed section and anything you don't want on your feed you click the X next to it. Take a look at this picture to see what I'm talking about. You can do this for as may items as you want.
At September 07, 2006 4:28 PM, david silver said...: excellent and spot on post.

"So I guess you could stay I'm stepping out of my analyst role, and trying to be a user advocate."

so: a user advocate that happens to be extremely knowledgeable about the environment and its users. perfect.
At September 07, 2006 7:37 PM, ann said...: great, thorough, articulate analysis. this is the first response i've read to the facebook changes (which i attempted to describe to my mother using the word 'cataclysm') that really nails it.

in response to brian's comment: the 'x' button he describes only removes updates from a 'mini-feed' list on users' profiles. it does not remove the update from the main newsfeed on the homepage, and in some instances, 'x'ing out an item on your mini-feed will cause another update to pop up on the homepage newsfeed incorrectly informing the community that you've removed the updated item from your profile --

e.g., if you add a movie to your favorite movies list, an alert appears on both the mini-feed and the homepage. if you then 'x' out the mini-feed update, a notice will appear on the homepage saying (erroneously) that you have removed the movie from your movie list.
At September 07, 2006 8:11 PM, ann said...: also, to add to your putting-on-your-clothes analogy--

it's not just 'what if everyone saw what i wore every single day' but 'what if they saw how many times i changed outfits every morning before i left the house.'
At September 07, 2006 9:56 PM, Bertil said...: Ann,

I believe you are right: this looks like a camera in your dressing room. . . And however, I'm not sure the worst is always the most revealing. Have you noticed that, at the doctor's, you undresss behing a curtain, and then let come back in your underwear? What's the point in hiding if you have to show it all? Being visible to someon of the art is fine; leting see changes is, somehow, not so.

I've always consdered the most undecent film ever shot is Rohmer's "Claire's Knee": not a square inch of skin, no unproper language, nothing PG-worty, nothing---but for two hours, he decribes meticulously a man's fantasy (a thirty-somehthing wants to caress the knee of a girl five year younger). Why is that so shocking? Because one's though will always be his best kept secret. Because many type those weird questions that they use to keep for themselves (and sometime their trustful best friend) in the resquest line of search engines, the logs of Google and others became the most fantacized database ever. . .

I recently was at a party: the restroom had a window that you could see through from where I stood in the dance floor (odd architecture, I reckon); no big deal, it seemed: you could see nothing but at the height of the head of someone standing---however, a girl entered, and I saw here doing nothing but stand there, to check on her make-up. . . The way she looked at herself in the mirror! My, I felt like I learnt more on her in the ten seconds I dared to look than by talking to her for hours; I felt such a urge to look away! And I know most of your will blame me for those ten seconds of looking---at her eyes!

Fred,

Your main factual point seemed to be (back to business) that befriending someone on Facebook is too little a commitment to access such a feed.

Privacy is complex, and it is more about ackowledgement than real hiding. Do you remember ever refusing your e-mail address to someone who asked for it? Becuse the mere asking implies the relation can sustain mailing. Wouldn't this be fine if people had the link accessible from they website, and could send it to their friend, if needed?

I'm thinking of something like Google Calendar feed (Fred, see my e-mail signature, but please don't post it here): there is tremendously private information there, but I decided that some people could see it. I need some to know when I'm available (to schedule some stats lessons or LaTeX introduction, see how sexy this can be); more people receive it than needed---but that is OK, it's my responsabilty (and I can reprogram it, or set it back to more privacy if needed).

However, most people who don't know that there are revealing information would blame the provider for their misunderstanding---and privacy statements are more about making fraud understood than covered. And puting all public info in the same place is not strickly revealing, but it looks like it.

I understand, to a programmer, this is odd---but remember all those blogger high-school students who left very harsh comments on their teachers and who got busted because social algorytms can help you find relevant pages even when the author carefully avoids all the wrong words? Lowering the barrier to get information is a big deal: you can make billions with it---or lose them if people would rather hide it.

ClaimID is about making associations clear, with the concerned party active consent. Imagine a similar device, that could tell you where else on the internet someone with the same IP posted some "public" info?
At September 08, 2006 12:25 PM, Drew Patterson said...: Fred,

Great observations. I like your analogy of "dressing for the world". The feeds also kill users ability to experiment with different ideas in their profile. Knowing that everyone will see a change to a profile reduces the users likelihood of test new elements in their profile. To use your dresing analogy, I may try a new look (say trade in my khakis for a set of prada pants), knowing that I will likely encounter certain people that day and can test my new look on them. If I knew I was going to see everyone from my mother to an ex to my boss, I might be inclined to stick with khakis. Social experimentation is much harder when everyone is looking.

drew
At September 08, 2006 6:25 PM, Fred Stutzman said...: Drew - you've nailed the essence perfectly.
At April 29, 2008 1:24 AM, Egon said...: I like the idea presented here, but I have a differing opinion. Isn't it better to try and get people comfortable with their personalities than their "online personalities"? I admit this does pose a problem to people, but not the problem you are suggesting. The problem is this, "Do you want your friends to know everything about you or do you want to be able to hide things from them?" You still have that choice. You can stop using facebook all together. I think this, in a slightly Orwellian way, gets us to just possibly accept that our friends are more than what we've known of them, and are still people we want to know, for all the faults they have. I consider being able to have someone know me better is the only way I can find those who should be near to me.